Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38598
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.44.29 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=D+k4SNFj472689iehfP+OT3nNC2UXlvSBtNC08bjMSFMHvDCE5VKJi2K8pq9Hc6JRd
         PXMTM3T2sHu7ubvq34Xm7sz9u5XHyk1nisW30g7ZxtlblVpVMad9DQntUc6BjkfeUN7L
         vBvpFmajGFqExR8KteL//Wl+HWH+EWeVQcQ6g=
Message-ID: <e666c3890806241223w700b9822g5934878ae87144e4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:23:37 +0200
Sender: ekneuss@gmail.com
To: "Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com>
Cc: "PHP internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <48613837.2040901@zend.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <e666c3890806200904i268355ddt1bf6733db15c9699@mail.gmail.com>
	 <485C5081.1050609@zend.com>
	 <cd5680a20806202253r72685325j4da472abc72dc95d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <485FDBE2.6020409@zend.com>
	 <cd5680a20806232207m68f9986aoa94e09d769b2c4ff@mail.gmail.com>
	 <486122CC.5050303@zend.com>
	 <e666c3890806241104s25e6985ej37daa7749742e0e0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48613837.2040901@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] LSB forward_static_call()
From: colder@php.net ("Etienne Kneuss")

Hello,

you're the only one disagreeing here, in this thread everybody is in
favor of that change except you, and your arguments are:

1) this difference is bad
2) no problem with functions

For which I've (along with others) already argued that:
1.1) some difference is already felt by regular users (They actually
believe that parent:: is a special construct that allows non-static
calls), I'm not saying it's OK because they're wrong, but it won't be
a shock to introduce a difference.
1.2) the difference is only relevant in some very limited cases
1.3) the ClassName:: alternative needs to be used on very very limited cases

2.1) functions shouldn't be here to solve language design problems,
especially when half of the feature is implemented as a  keyword.
2.2) It's not convenient at all (c.f. references) , has WTF factors
(c.f. referencing unrelated class), confusing naming.

So yeah, if you're really the only one against it, and nobody else
speaks up to disagree, I guess it should be ok to commit it.

Regards

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> No need to argue over and over, I'll produce a patch based on the
>> (probably) outdated one done by Mike and have it committed if no new
>> strong feelings against it raises.
>
> I must be missing something in this "discussion" concept. So it goes like
> this: "I will make a patch and commit" - "No, please don't, it is not good!"
> - argument, argument, tons of explanations why it's not good - "OK, no need
> to argue, I will make patch and commit". Why bother?
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
> stas@zend.com   http://www.zend.com/
> (408)253-8829   MSN: stas@zend.com
>
>



-- 
Etienne Kneuss
http://www.colder.ch

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from a religious conviction.
-- Pascal