Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:40176 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 72384 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2008 23:04:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Aug 2008 23:04:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tony@daylessday.org; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tony@daylessday.org; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain daylessday.org designates 89.208.40.236 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tony@daylessday.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 89.208.40.236 mail.daylessday.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [89.208.40.236] ([89.208.40.236:56745] helo=daylessday.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 7C/45-27196-9F1D9B84 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:04:27 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.40] (ppp83-237-198-11.pppoe.mtu-net.ru [83.237.198.11]) by daylessday.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAEC26401F1; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:04:22 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <48B9D1EC.2080101@daylessday.org> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:04:12 +0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20071114) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Diogo Neves CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <87ae45950808301302o24f164daj4377a360f3ed1a2c@mail.gmail.com> <48B9B3F8.2060409@suse.de> <48B9B55A.6050707@lerdorf.com> <87ae45950808301550n392cee6ft245c7be188b30e7b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <87ae45950808301550n392cee6ft245c7be188b30e7b@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] __call() magic method From: tony@daylessday.org (Antony Dovgal) On 31.08.2008 02:50, Diogo Neves wrote: > Exactly... > > Is that normal workings or more like a bugie one? Definitely not a bug. I believe the reason is that if you enable __call() in this case, you'd have different behavior depending on the calling scope, i.e. complete mess. Also there would be no way to know you're calling a method you're not supposed to call (unless you trigger an error yourself). -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal