Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52010
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain yahoo.com.au from 98.139.91.87 cause and error)
DomainKey-Status: good
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au;
  h=DKIM-Signature:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=APX2XDS7OuqPks1kdlbxIMVDa5YqheDB86okNvneBaK1+n7Z9ny80PNhMaOrh5l5SfiN5hoWOyo87UYkJSG2stJXg9Kz4LvaRqAQYkD1A2+YE6fSIJTeDfYDWAvYx2dWJmfa3j9nl4epS6A5vVY59MrdD26RlbUSYPm7VKdMvHs=  ;
Message-ID: <4DB613C0.4060905@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:37:20 +1000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 ThunderBrowse/3.3.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Scotta <martinscotta@gmail.com>
CC: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <5870D50E38AE4374833F83A59ABFB59E@gmail.com>	<4DB4847B.3080004@gmail.com>	<20110424202353.GC21102@crousti>	<BANLkTi=kG_6KiEzNwmdAFtQqLnS=jCkoKw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=wUHSHZoT8sv_MXSp0KjCXVe1MvA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=wUHSHZoT8sv_MXSp0KjCXVe1MvA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Call non-static method staticly raise E_STRICT, but
 why call a static method instancely won't
From: mail_ben_schmidt@yahoo.com.au (Ben Schmidt)

> Back in PHP4 it was the only way to "simulate" an static call, but
> nowadays it really don't make sense at all.
>
> class Foo {
>       static function toString(Bar $bar) {
>            return 'Foo::toString($bar)';
>       }
>       function toString() {
>            return '$this->toString()';
>       }
> }
>
> $foo = new Foo();
> echo $foo->toString(); // instance
> echo Foo::toString(); // class
>
> PHP will complain about the 2nd method (can't redefine function) but for me
> are 2 completely different methods.
> I belive the current Object Model could be improved. isn't?

I agree. Backward compatibility is the only reason to keep this. It's a
pretty compelling reason, though. It's hard to know how to phase it out
"non-invasively", too.

Ben.