Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35723
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 209.85.146.179 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=HiBCOFbdB7Yhvv7oTwfz/J44n4RtdV7/nLDW/0NEiPhO57S1lT2be1jd8fZbUB62RP6KT7xOLlHWt7yMfM2ARG8wDGgv06LTfx9oGMUZCIL/V8HWmZKeUbfjRJTxZxPyVEMaZko+VYpOJtCmtAbzUWQsgCvLV1NugsM+bhK9wJQ=
Message-ID: <10845a340802220300t50072babh43ca299010147808@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:00:46 +0000
Reply-To: RQuadling@GoogleMail.com
To: ceo@l-i-e.com
Cc: "David Coallier" <davidc@php.net>, php@stefan-marr.de, 
	internals@lists.php.net, 
	"=?UTF-8?Q?Marcus_B=C3=83=C2=B6rger?=" <helly@php.net>, 
	"=?UTF-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=83=C2=BCter?=" <johannes@php.net>, 
	"Sebastian Bergmann" <sb@sebastian-bergmann.de>, 
	"Alexandre Bergel" <alexandre@bergel.eu>, 
	"Falko Menge" <falko.menge@hpi.uni-potsdam.de>, 
	"Sara Golemon" <pollita@php.net>, derick@php.net
In-Reply-To: <33475.98.193.37.55.1203621640.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <001c01c87264$3c01b4e0$b4051ea0$@de>
	 <58510.98.193.37.55.1203374232.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com>
	 <b5f7bf6c0802181508j7124be3y92800e15a25f9497@mail.gmail.com>
	 <33475.98.193.37.55.1203621640.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Traits for PHP
From: rquadling@googlemail.com ("Richard Quadling")

On 21/02/2008, Richard Lynch <ceo@l-i-e.com> wrote:
> I am not complaining.
>
>  I think it's a FINE proposal.
>
>  I'm suggesting an alternative solution which is simpler and easier to
>  implement, with less confusion for new users.
>
>  In fact, new users are often confused because the CAN'T do an include
>  in the middle of a class -- A rule which, to some, seems arbitrary and
>  illogical.

And once they understand (if they do) why they cannot use "include",
they want to know how to do it anyway.

Traits answer this quite nicely. All be it in a way which the idea of
include would solve if it was done at parse/compile time.

So, maybe something as simple as

class_include 'file.inc';

where the name has to be a constant (parse error otherwise).

But having said that traits LOOK nice. They look clever.

Is it over complicated? If you don't know OOP, then maybe. But hell if
everything was easy we would have monkeys doing it all for us.

Traits look good. Many userland developers would use them. Many more
would need to learn how to use them. Let's add them! It certainly
would increase the amount of code reuse which MI theoretically is
supposed to do.

And then lets add accessibility to class properties without magic functions.

Richard.
-- 
-----
Richard Quadling
Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731
"Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"