Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35851
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 85.214.94.56 as permitted sender)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:40:50 +0100
Reply-To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
Message-ID: <1841221239.20080228154050@marcus-boerger.de>
To: Stefan Marr <php@stefan-marr.de>
CC: Joshua Thompson <spam.goes.in.here@gmail.com>, internals@lists.php.net, 
	Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com>
In-Reply-To: <47C66328.10606@stefan-marr.de>
References: <47C317F4.2080301@stefan-marr.de> <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE01506447@us-ex1.zend.net> <36.91.14752.56226C74@pb1.pair.com> <47C66328.10606@stefan-marr.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] How to build a real Trait thing without exclusion and renaming
From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger)

Hello Stefan,

Thursday, February 28, 2008, 8:30:48 AM, you wrote:

> Hi,

> Joshua Thompson schrieb:
>> Andi Gutmans wrote:
>>> The following code shows a few things:
>>> - local properties which can be used in self-contained functionality.
>>> The storage is guaranteed to stay internal and will not clash with the
>>> aggregating class.
> Yes, it is a nice to have.

>>> - methods are by default hidden to the aggregating class and bound to
>>> the trait (as Marcus pointed out the method name would be mangled with
>>> the trait's name)
> Hm, ok. It is the pessimistic counterpart to my proposal. In general, 
> I'm much more optimistic and would prefer to teach developers to use 
> proper naming to avoid conflicts. But if there is no other way to go, it 
> is ok.

I did a lot of tutorials and sessions on object oriented PHP and I have
learned one thing we have to make it easy  and limit the ability to use
stuff wrong. In other words we have to be pessimistic. Otherwise we end up
in a mess.

>> I was working on a detailed RFC of something along these lines. I didn't 
>> include the local keyword, instead I went the route of stateful traits 
>> and forced the definition of which scope in the class. I also tried to 
>> keep the number of keywords to 1 (`trait`).
>> 
>> I will keep working on it, and hopefully post it tomorrow for review.
> Looking forward to read it :)

Same here

Best regards,
 Marcus