Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39785
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.198.231 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=F625Mo9oOdH3Ah/L0PHUnspWRRpQ1mp4OGCzMcOuYLJi9lMYD1bRimTcgWUh5e2cX9
         mKvoG8LOzFVUj7pNApvLRQCvl+JLbafZiIS25J+Y3hPDCG0WZAEsnJKdi64x9hmoLXBS
         x8DVnaGQA8qsXbjv4G4OK9/2n4L3xSfiFGgFk=
Message-ID: <fe05d1540808081647l2487980dv9bdd16394dc769b9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 01:47:19 +0200
To: "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>
Cc: "Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com>, 
	"PHP Internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <122515992.20080809010008@marcus-boerger.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <489CAD75.2060404@zend.com>
	 <1961502655.20080809000521@marcus-boerger.de>
	 <489CC5BD.4060701@zend.com>
	 <221319091.20080809002725@marcus-boerger.de>
	 <489CCB62.8010406@zend.com>
	 <122515992.20080809010008@marcus-boerger.de>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] by-ref return & inheritance
From: pierre.php@gmail.com ("Pierre Joye")

hi Stanislav , Marcus,

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net> wrote:
> Hello Stanislav,
>
> Saturday, August 9, 2008, 12:40:34 AM, you wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>
>>> Yes, it breaks the principle. E.g. caller knows callee returns by ref - you
>>> break this, as easy as that.
>
>> I'm sorry I think you misunderstood my proposal. I proposed allowing
>> overriding this:
>> public function __get($name)
>> with this:
>> public function &__get($name)
>
>> but not the reverse. So if the caller known callee returns by ref - it
>> means it already expects the child class, not the parent class. Thus, it
>> does not break anything.
>> Is there any other problem that you see?
>
> What makes you think there won't be a problem with the reverse. The caller
> does not expect a reference but the calle returns one? In OOP the return
> value of the derived class' method must be an instance of the class defined
> by the base class' method or a subclasse of that. And so far we tream them
> different, rather than a reference is a subclass of a normal value or vice
> versa.

I know that we don't like to add new magic methods, but this case
seems to require new ones. What's about __getByRef (and its setter
equivalent if it is also not supported yet)?


Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org