Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35754
Return-Path: <php@stefan-marr.de>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 28546 invoked by uid 1010); 23 Feb 2008 17:39:35 -0000
Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net
Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 28531 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2008 17:39:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 23 Feb 2008 17:39:35 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@stefan-marr.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@stefan-marr.de; 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] ([82.96.83.42:45824] helo=serv6.servweb.de)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 7B/1C-30812-55A50C74 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:39:34 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.25] (toolslave.net [85.88.12.247])
	by serv6.servweb.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0BD590029;
	Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:41:04 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <47C05A56.4000002@stefan-marr.de>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:39:34 +0100
Reply-To: php@stefan-marr.de
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joshua Thompson <spam.goes.in.here@gmail.com>
Cc: Internals Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <001c01c87264$3c01b4e0$b4051ea0$@de> <90.8A.64513.EB75EB74@pb1.pair.com>
In-Reply-To: <90.8A.64513.EB75EB74@pb1.pair.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Redirected: By TestProxy
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Traits for PHP
From: php@stefan-marr.de (Stefan Marr)

Hi,

> I came across one piece of information on aliasing that may not be 
> obvious at first and therefore should probably be explicitly stated in 
> the RFC and in the manual when this makes it into the core.
> 
> Quoting <http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Archive/Papers/Scha03aTraits.pdf>:
> "Note that because the body of the aliased method is not changed in any 
> way, so an alias to a recursive method is not recursive."
> 
thanks, yes, should have state that explicitly. Will add a note and an 
example.

Kind Regards
Stefan