Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38524 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 34049 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2008 22:45:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Jun 2008 22:45:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=jochem@iamjochem.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=jochem@iamjochem.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain iamjochem.com from 194.109.193.121 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: jochem@iamjochem.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 194.109.193.121 mx1.moulin.nl Linux 2.6 Received: from [194.109.193.121] ([194.109.193.121:50774] helo=mx1.moulin.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 04/F7-23032-FE5DE584 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:45:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.moulin.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id C254326C9DA; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:44:59 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at moulin.nl Received: from mx1.moulin.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.moulin.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 52PCXUDLTIrV; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:44:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.0.13.104] (ip129-15-211-87.adsl2.static.versatel.nl [87.211.15.129]) by mx1.moulin.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82C2926C7B2; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:44:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <485ED5E5.1050904@iamjochem.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:44:53 +0200 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Etienne Kneuss CC: Stanislav Malyshev , PHP internals References: <485C5081.1050609@zend.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] LSB forward_static_call() From: jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) Etienne Kneuss schreef: > Hello, > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 2:51 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> Hi! >> >>> So, I really would like to revert that foward_static_call stuff and >>> implement the parent:: patch instead, while it's still possible. >>> >>> thoughts? >> Didn't we discuss that already? Adding magic to parent:: is not a good >> idea, it's very basic language construct and should work simple. yes! >> LSB is >> an advanced feature, which probably would be used deep inside library guts >> and thus can use more elaborate syntax. like static::foo() or if you're really feeling brave fix 'self' so that it does LSB like it 'should' have done from the start. > > It seems natural to think of LSB as a language feature, and so it > doesn't feel right to have it partly implemented as a keyword, and > then fix the problematic part as function. > We already see how call_user_func is painful to use (i.e. with methods > that use references), that same burden will be put on > forward_static_call. and ironically call_user_func*() is quite often used in hacks that work round the lack of LSB. forward_static_call() would relegate LSB to a second rate feature, whilst 'comparable' languages treat it as a core OO feature. I know that other languages are not the measure of things, but in the case of LSB I believe it should be a first class feature of an OO language. > >> On top of that, by making parent:: forward called class name, you remove >> the possibility of doing non-forwarding call to the parent class. > > Why would that be no longer possible ? If you want to make a > non-forwarding call to the parent class, you can use > TheParentClassName::foo();. I certainly don't expect 'parent' to end up making a call to a method defined in a sub-class. Also don't we use 'parent' for much the same reason we use '__construct' ? i.e. so we don't need to know which class is actually the parent defining the requested method. rewriting parent::meth() into parentClassName::meth() is like rewriting class Foo {function __construct() {}} into class Foo {function Foo() {}} no? please reconsider a either a new explicit keyword (e.g. 'static') or even making 'self' LSB. I doubt much code would be affected if the semantics of 'self' changed. another possibility is the keyword 'child', fits in nicely with 'parent' and 'self' and describes nicely where in the class hierarchy a search for the method/property will begin. > >> 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. > > It's about 85% slower than a direct call. Sure it's not that slow when > measuring absolutely, but we're talking about a feature that will be > typically used in frameworks and libraries, so the amount of calls may > be quite big. > >> -- >> Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect >> stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ >> (408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com >> >> >> > > >