Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39781
Return-Path: <helly@php.net>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 6647 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2008 22:28:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 8 Aug 2008 22:28:00 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=helly@php.net; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=helly@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 85.214.94.56 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: helly@php.net
X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.214.94.56 aixcept.net Linux 2.6
Received: from [85.214.94.56] ([85.214.94.56:57261] helo=h1149922.serverkompetenz.net)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 40/D0-02575-F68CC984 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:28:00 -0400
Received: from MBOERGER-ZRH.corp.google.com (133-155.107-92.cust.bluewin.ch [92.107.155.133])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by h1149922.serverkompetenz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A1F811F07B;
	Sat,  9 Aug 2008 00:27:55 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 00:27:25 +0200
Reply-To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <221319091.20080809002725@marcus-boerger.de>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>
CC: 'PHP Internals' <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <489CC5BD.4060701@zend.com>
References: <489CAD75.2060404@zend.com> <1961502655.20080809000521@marcus-boerger.de> <489CC5BD.4060701@zend.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] by-ref return & inheritance
From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger)

Hello Stanislav,

Saturday, August 9, 2008, 12:16:29 AM, you wrote:

> Hi!

>>   I think we may want to stick to our is-a mantra.

> I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. But our principle was to 
> allow things that do not violate the LSP - such as adding optional 
> parameters, for example. I think returning by-ref can be allowed on the 
> same principle. Is there any problem with allowing it that you see?

Yes, it breaks the principle. E.g. caller knows callee returns by ref - you
break this, as easy as that.

Best regards,
 Marcus