Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35707 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 24949 invoked by uid 1010); 21 Feb 2008 22:55:10 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 24934 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2008 22:55:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Feb 2008 22:55:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@stefan-marr.de; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@stefan-marr.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain stefan-marr.de from 82.96.83.42 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@stefan-marr.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.96.83.42 serv6.servweb.de Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from [82.96.83.42] ([82.96.83.42:52198] helo=serv6.servweb.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 26/09-64513-D410EB74 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:55:09 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.25] (toolslave.net [85.88.12.247]) by serv6.servweb.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895205903B8; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:56:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47BE014F.5020202@stefan-marr.de> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:55:11 +0100 Reply-To: php@stefan-marr.de User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jvlad , Internals Mailing List References: <47BD207C.2080905@chiaraquartet.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Redirected: By TestProxy Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Trait aliasing syntax suggestions From: php@stefan-marr.de (Stefan Marr) Hi, jvlad schrieb: > in other words, why to introduce such a new thing as trait instead of using > classes and trait'ing them? I've introduced it as a separate notion from classes to avoid misconception and problems occurring from conflicting properties and constant definitions. Your example demonstrates the week point of this approach very well in my eyes. Instead of allow easy reuse, you will have to manage much more conflicts. Think it is better to restrict the idea. Just allow to reuse methods trying to avoid additional conflicts which must be handled each time. Another point is, think there is no benefit in duplicating constants?. Kind Regards Stefan