Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:40185
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 64.233.166.177 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=PGT1M5lwv+urFVEnetEHPH45kA0oXfVWnG2NSuJRNuz8lQVK06FD5QqOhBhkC+3c53
         5rjuOA0Eo1Mw0Xeap3Ntkig0Rl4vNhn7rm1Pp/Y0cbg9/7CGa1DInBD/rtN+eiMocfiu
         wlph1YPO8SOj54tIp1va5Exc32A0zcMN1nKMw=
Message-ID: <87ae45950808310350n389f73f7qb710e05fbf5655aa@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:50:48 +0100
To: "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>
Cc: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, 
	"=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cristian_Rodr=EDguez?=" <crrodriguez@suse.de>, 
	internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <607814897.20080831120322@marcus-boerger.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <87ae45950808301302o24f164daj4377a360f3ed1a2c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48B9B3F8.2060409@suse.de> <48B9B55A.6050707@lerdorf.com>
	 <87ae45950808301550n392cee6ft245c7be188b30e7b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <607814897.20080831120322@marcus-boerger.de>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] __call() magic method
From: dafneves@gmail.com ("Diogo Neves")

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net> wrote:
> Hello Diogo,
>
> Sunday, August 31, 2008, 12:50:15 AM, you wrote:
>
>> Exactly...
>
>> Is that normal workings or more like a bugie one?
>
>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wr=
ote:
>>> Cristian Rodr=EDguez wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Diogo Neves escribi=F3:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm emailling to ask why __call isn't called when you call a private
>>>>> method from outside of function...
>>>>
>>>> Please provide example code ;-)
>>>
>>> He means this:
>>>
>>> class foo {
>>>  private function bar() { }
>>>  function __call($f,$a) {
>>>    echo "called $f";
>>>  }
>>> }
>>> $a =3D new foo;
>>> $a->bar();
>>>
>
> In the above code you clearly try to call a private method.

As Mike Lively before point to me __get, and after i tried __set,
works diferently as u can see:

<?php
class foo {
 private $a =3D 'a';

 public function __set( $name, $value ) {
=09return $this->$name =3D $value;
 }

 public function __get( $name ) {
=09return $this->$name;
 }
}
$obj =3D new foo;
$obj->a =3D 'b';
echo( $obj->a );
?>

My problem was that i only had work with __get and expected same
behavior for __call :)

 There is
> nothing more to say. In the following case it coul dbe a bit different:
>
> <?php
> class foo {
>  private function test() {
>        echo __METHOD__ . "\n";
>  }
> }
> class bar extends foo {
>  function __call($name, $args) {
>        echo __METHOD__ . "($name)\n";
>  }
> }
> $obj =3D new foo;
> $obj->test();
> ?>
>
> This is different because we call into an object of type bar. Now in scop=
e
> bar we do not know anything about foo::test.

<?php
 class foo {
  private $a =3D 'a';
  public function test() {
        echo( $this->a );
  }
 }
 class bar extends foo {
  private $a =3D 'b';
  public function test2() {
        echo( $this->a );
  }
 }
 $obj =3D new bar;
 $obj->test();
 $obj->test2();
?>

Now i understood what u mean by 'bar' scope...
:S I'm in need of a good scope article, some one know a good one?

 That said we should probably
> allow __call there rather than the error. And it is easy enought o fix as
> we know that in bar we have only inherited foo::test.
>
> If we move __call into foo it is the other way around then again. This is
> because we will call into the object and start method resolution at scope
> bar. As that does not know anything about test, we will use the inherited
> method call to dynamically handle the call. However, that means we are in
> scope foo where we do know about test and hence should issue the error.
> But we will have a harder time issuing that error. As inside the engine w=
e
> actually never go down to scope foo and instead simply use the inherited
> __call.
>
> So yes, this can be seen as a bug and part of it can easily be fixed. But
> I do not see an easy way to fix it 100% according to inheritance rules.
>
> Best regards,
>  Marcus
>


--=20
Thanks for your attention,

Diogo Neves
Web Developer @ SAPO.pt by PrimeIT.pt