Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38494 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46994 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2008 16:35:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Jun 2008 16:35:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=mjlivelyjr@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=mjlivelyjr@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.200.169 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: mjlivelyjr@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.200.169 wf-out-1314.google.com Received: from [209.85.200.169] ([209.85.200.169:65183] helo=wf-out-1314.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 4C/83-26505-3ED2D584 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:35:47 -0400 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 26so1332770wfd.26 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.218.4 with SMTP id q4mr1305249wfg.273.1214059731844; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.216.8 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7495478f0806210748u1cb4dedcy9b12da02b5ecb4f0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:48:51 -0700 To: "Stanislav Malyshev" Cc: "Etienne Kneuss" , "PHP internals" In-Reply-To: <485C5081.1050609@zend.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_18996_2656372.1214059731824" References: <485C5081.1050609@zend.com> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] LSB forward_static_call() From: mjlivelyjr@gmail.com ("Mike Lively") ------=_Part_18996_2656372.1214059731824 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > Didn't we discuss that already? It was discussed but there was never any kind of agreement nor was there ever any kind of vote. The only reason the discussion stopped is that I wanted to be sure SOME way of forwarding the called name was in 5.3 core. I am fairly confident that when it comes right down to it you are in the minority in this opinion about parent and that combined with the fact that there was never any kind of vote (that I am aware of) is enough to warrant bringing up this discussion again. > Adding magic to parent:: is not a good > idea, it's very basic language construct and should work simple. LSB is > an advanced feature, which probably would be used deep inside library guts > and thus can use more elaborate syntax. > On top of that, by making parent:: forward called class name, you remove > the possibility of doing non-forwarding call to the parent class. > The possibility is not removed. You can always call the parent class explicitly. Hell, we could always right a function to call parent methods without forwarding tihe called class :P. > > As for it being slow - how slow it is? Does it really so slow that it > makes real-life application that otherwise would be fast to be slow? Or > it's just "couple more CPU cycles" slow? I suspect the latter - and thus > I don't think speed optimizations belong there. I agree with you in that I don't think the speed really matters much in this case (though maybe I am wrong?). I am looking at this issue purely from the usability and expectation standpoint. > > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect > stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ > (408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > ------=_Part_18996_2656372.1214059731824--