Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38480
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 64.233.170.186 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=RA/7irXnOZvREN8D0lVGARCTNB6H4MXZnKIiKV+HQx9SqmIya3hLxROztkIcgcLXPB
         YAHCtTF3sbyvgt/AE5OUEqaNoAYi9JQ61GxVrf6nMPAksz9UWhjKjdOG28aqc4rSiqzM
         UdNA2DlSDLMdnzMPetQQ4BqhmBIxV0wWprlLs=
Message-ID: <cd5680a20806200939p547dc733gbc07f4cba692de67@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:39:56 +0400
To: "Etienne Kneuss" <colder@php.net>
Cc: "PHP internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <e666c3890806200904i268355ddt1bf6733db15c9699@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <e666c3890806200904i268355ddt1bf6733db15c9699@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] LSB forward_static_call()
From: indeyets@gmail.com ("Alexey Zakhlestin")

On 6/20/08, Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net> wrote:

>  To sum up key points about each possibilities:
>
>  1) forward_static_call
>  + no need to affect the engine
>  - slow, painful
>
>  2) parent:: carries the info while ParentClassName:: doesn't
>  + convenient
>  + no functionnality lost
>  - introduces a difference between parent:: and classname::, but
>  restricted to LSB so no BC break
>
>  It really seems like (2) is the most PHP way of doing things, while
>  (1) is more of a hack that we will regret later.
>  The only problem about (2) is that difference, but I really feel (and
>  experienced in the multiple help channels that I'm in) that people
>  already see (wrongly for now) classname:: and parent:: as slightly
>  different. So introducing it as of 5_3 wouldn't be too much of a
>  shock. The point is that: people who uses LSB will be aware of that
>  difference and will use parent:: vs classname:: carefully, while
>  others will be able to ignore it
>
>  So, I really would like to revert that foward_static_call stuff and
>  implement the parent:: patch instead, while it's still possible.
>
>  thoughts?

I am all for it.
that would be "intuitive" way of doing things, like I already stated before

-- 
Alexey Zakhlestin
http://blog.milkfarmsoft.com/