Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49847 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 76830 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2010 12:03:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Oct 2010 12:03:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ceo@l-i-e.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ceo@l-i-e.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain l-i-e.com designates 67.139.134.202 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ceo@l-i-e.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.139.134.202 o2.hostbaby.com FreeBSD 4.7-5.2 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.3) (2) Received: from [67.139.134.202] ([67.139.134.202:4308] helo=o2.hostbaby.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id EB/E3-52683-BF078AC4 for ; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 08:03:08 -0400 Received: (qmail 48908 invoked by uid 98); 3 Oct 2010 12:03:06 -0000 Received: from localhost by o2.hostbaby.com (envelope-from , uid 1013) with qmail-scanner-2.05 ( Clear:RC:1(127.0.0.1):. Processed in 0.036007 secs); 03 Oct 2010 12:03:06 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO www.l-i-e.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Oct 2010 12:03:06 -0000 Received: from webmail (SquirrelMail authenticated user ceo@l-i-e.com) by www.l-i-e.com with HTTP; Sun, 3 Oct 2010 07:03:06 -0500 Message-ID: <8952a73d2f5f96efefae9a08302a12b6.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com> In-Reply-To: References: <4CA3A7EF.6000201@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 07:03:06 -0500 To: internals@lists.php.net User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Bug in 5.3 __invoke() magic method? From: ceo@l-i-e.com ("Richard Lynch") On Thu, September 30, 2010 7:20 am, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > On 2010-09-29, Stas Malyshev wrote: > * BC break for existing codebases that have properties and methods of > the same name. (That's a code smell, anyways, and tools can help > developers refactor to fix such cases.) Errrr. No. Oft-times the property and method have the same name as the a "getter" and I like it that way. I don't really want to re-factor my code because you think I should re-name everything all goofy. :-) > I personally think the BC breaks here are worth it -- they make the > behavior more predictable, easier to document, and easier to > understand. If a developer can't understand that properties and methods are different beasts, then I'm not sure they ought to be using OOP at all... But I'm an old Lisp hacker, and am more befuddled by JS et al cramming everything into one bucket than this separation of church and state... :-) -- brain cancer update: http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/search/label/brain%20tumor Donate: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FS9NLTNEEKWBE