Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:51998 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 53794 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2011 04:07:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Apr 2011 04:07:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=reeze.xia@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=reeze.xia@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.173 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: reeze.xia@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.212.173 mail-px0-f173.google.com Received: from [209.85.212.173] ([209.85.212.173:62088] helo=mail-px0-f173.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 48/30-49249-CF1A3BD4 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:07:25 -0400 Received: by pxi16 with SMTP id 16so1172590pxi.18 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:07:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:date:from:to:message-id:subject:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q81jRiYsVhrv8q9SdBopkVQbeF3XqLET0EF3AmQ6GzA=; b=AiABB7HLmIFwDEaAWGqf2SSbqV2oLfCTf5x+NDBKsFus474CLwOXXIVxxCS5mDlFZ9 5P3YHtI2HRCkJerVeK5kEmxNF7/8waOMOrvLeiSzBwuSvUC32DPM6hrYCjMFqMg3Ocvb is8DWvX9Pj5WjyF54+bEokEZRoyJa5EogDqlU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=izeVjDQopNWebcMQUw6s7JQ5UiDlzpmCYJXa5GANHtFKgRrMehJc/VDZFlz/fWLkQX WW298bMmldINFp8teiJuDsCHWX4Eb010V/jcbLYBIMhJPd4qDuOJl6UASTP91tHadOYZ pH7+AlUz4oCq6cktXo2A3VWrzKLCEzKvNw8+k= Received: by 10.68.62.132 with SMTP id y4mr4188175pbr.212.1303618041564; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:07:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([222.128.142.227]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q10sm1925752pbk.39.2011.04.23.21.07.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:07:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:07:11 +0800 To: PHP internals list Message-ID: <5870D50E38AE4374833F83A59ABFB59E@gmail.com> X-Mailer: sparrow 1.0.1 (build 589.15) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="4db3a1ef_799d0247_2d0f" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Call non-static method staticly raise E_STRICT, but why call a static method instancely won't From: reeze.xia@gmail.com (reeze) --4db3a1ef_799d0247_2d0f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi, I am not sure it's the right place to discuss this. someday I found I call a static method _instancely_. the method is just a helper method when reviewing my code. I know I do the wrong thing, but PHP doesn't complain about it. then I do some tests like below: staticFunc(); // Just static no E_STRICT error raised I know it's the wrong way to do like these, maybe there are some historical reasons to allow these. I just wonder why previous method call raise E_STRICT but later not. Yes, something could be done doesn't means we should, but we could stop things like happened. ----- http://reeze.cn --4db3a1ef_799d0247_2d0f--