Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:31365
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pooteeweet.org from 85.10.196.195 cause and error)
Message-ID: <46B18C41.5010408@pooteeweet.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:48:17 +0200
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
CC: Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com>, =?UTF-8?B?Sm9oYW5uZXMgU2NobMO8dGVy?=
 <johannes@php.net>, Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net>, 
 internals@lists.php.net, Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@prohost.org>
References: <46AE49B3.2070100@php.net> <1185883035.23889.31.camel@johannes.nop> <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE7C10BB@us-ex1.zend.net> <alpine.DEB.0.98.0708020913130.26720@kossu.ez.no>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.0.98.0708020913130.26720@kossu.ez.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-backendmedia-com-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-backendmedia-com-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-backendmedia-com-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached,
	score=0.1, required 6, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.10)
X-backendmedia-com-MailScanner-From: mls@pooteeweet.org
X-Spam-Status: No
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Fix inconsistencies in OO calls
From: mls@pooteeweet.org (Lukas Kahwe Smith)

Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> 
>> This is not really a fix. When we worked on PHP 5 we deliberately 
>> decided to relax on all the weird dynamic constructs which didn't 
>> provide a lot of value for the majority of use-cases. Of course the 
>> Reflection API was going to be the way to do these dynamic things in 
>> future. It would also simplify the engine's code. The reason why those 
>> first constructs work were for BC reasons. We didn't want to break 
>> existing code but wanted to not add on top of this.
>>
>> While it may feel inconsistent I still prefer the existing path. Maybe 
>> for PHP 6 we can even make an E_STRICT message for the old way which 
>> refers you to the Reflection API?
> 
> I think that'd be a bad idea. I don't see a problem with this patch at 
> all, and why should people use reflection here? As you're always so much 
> for BC, I find it strange that you're suggesting to remove something 
> totally harmless and instead want people to force to use the 
> slow Reflection API which is meant for introspection...

I agree its harmless and easy to learn. Moreover I do not see the 
benefit of using the Reflection API instead.

@Andi: Could you explain to us why you think that this sort of thing 
should best be done through the Reflection API?

regards,
Lukas