Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:33350 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26092 invoked by uid 1010); 20 Nov 2007 02:36:26 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26076 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2007 02:36:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Nov 2007 02:36:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=m@digitalsandwich.com; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=m@digitalsandwich.com; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain digitalsandwich.com does not designate 68.230.241.40 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: m@digitalsandwich.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 68.230.241.40 fed1rmmtao106.cox.net Solaris 10 (beta) Received: from [68.230.241.40] ([68.230.241.40:63357] helo=fed1rmmtao106.cox.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 91/0D-50425-72842474 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:36:25 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20071120023608.KCBX20016.fed1rmmtao106.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:36:08 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([68.96.248.22]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id Eqc91Y0010Vk8yk0000000; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:36:09 -0500 Message-ID: <4741D78D.4060900@digitalsandwich.com> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:35:57 +0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071108) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PHP Developers Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] late static binding php6 From: m@digitalsandwich.com (Mike Lively) Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > actually i do not think this is obviously more intuitive than what we > currently have. also that would introduce BC issues. so i think adding > some new magic constants (if they are not yet added) would probably > solve the situation more or less, plus you have self:: if you need to > do something more complex. of course it adds some more method calls. > > regards, > Lukas > There wouldn't be any BC issues, the same methods wind up getting called, the only thing affected here is the resolution of static:: which obviously isn't set in stone until 5.3 is out.