Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49470
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=Q+nuq7PLF637iP6CWl4ftcqEZt5Ra5wiqSaEVQ9to3OUkiXEyB2WQNm4wGkMY5mtHN
         df4jOfNahswDPBd7WmnfsbF6BEegDO6fw8iZLrxh3vT5cpcd/I4CRelEW7hYAPD1MCtV
         2s7hxlCEe4bOeVkjh+rPByOstrKMZQJYM2JC8=
Message-ID: <4C6D9DAF.9030108@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:10:07 +0100
Reply-To: nrixham@gmail.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Stockton <chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com>
CC: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, 
 "Ionut G. Stan" <ionut.g.stan@gmail.com>,
 internals@lists.php.net, smalyshev@sugarcrm.com, 
 Dave Ingram <dave@dmi.me.uk>
References: <4C6CE273.2070501@sugarcrm.com>	<4C6CE604.1010209@dmi.me.uk>	<4C6CE793.1020601@sugarcrm.com>	<1282206735.2561.11.camel@guybrush>	<4C6CF898.5060706@gmail.com>	<4C6D2EB8.30700@gmail.com>	<4C6D39EA.4000705@gmail.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20100819181013.18df1df8@zend.com>	<4C6D86FF.7050503@gmail.com> <AANLkTimCkhaS-z4JC_jE0czB4+UAFn5wVzb7VOy=ObYB@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimCkhaS-z4JC_jE0czB4+UAFn5wVzb7VOy=ObYB@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] inheritance check too strict?
From: nrixham@gmail.com (Nathan Rixham)

Chris Stockton wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Nathan Rixham <nrixham@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Guys, this is going a bit nuts, let's swap all the Foo and Bar's for a real
>> example - Zeev I've copied the way you specified above.
> 
> I think your misunderstanding his position. To summarize my
> understanding: he clearly states that in such a use case a warning is
> in order, however currently the warning is overly aggressive. I think
> in general this is a small fish in the pond but I see his point.
> 

Perhaps I am, I think his example was wrong - if it was an example of 
doing it the wrong way and an example which should trigger a warning 
then yes I totally agree.

To clarify, hopefully - given:

   class Point2D {}
   class Point3D extends Point2D {}

the following is incorrect and should raise a (heavy) warning (Zeev's 
example with class names changed for clarity):

   class Point2DManager {
     public function distanceBetween( Point3D $p1 , Point3D $p2 ) {};
   }
   class Point3DManager extends Point2DManager {
     public function distanceBetween( Point2D $p1 , Point2D $p2 ) {};
   }

whilst the following is correct, and should not raise any warning:

   class Point2DManager {
     public function distanceBetween( Point2D $p1 , Point2D $p2 ) {};
   }
   class Point3DManager extends Point2DManager {
     public function distanceBetween( Point3D $p1 , Point3D $p2 ) {};
   }

If we're all saying the same thing then great and apologies for the 
confusion.

Best,

Nathan