Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55490
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: ekneuss@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4E74E22F.1070203@sugarcrm.com>
References: <CAKUjMCXiYc63NKsUuYWXT-A-aPabdPV6142LP9h4-c=2aUxW=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c-YsWFtZVPajiUL6SKvde=EyVsSGAgWZrCCvT3Y9Q9YCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAET_qdOGZ1YUtE_X4gMDnPOTtw15h_fcMsQKY5jpZrDkvoscvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpfHKHsP-btD33wR2+b=WZMJ1iMzULYuKjkQLTALU6HSog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACQesk71k5ff0a8D8K2T5d7UB3HFjK+0Ggoa+E+_dwRQ8k65Aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E74E22F.1070203@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:28:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CACQesk6imnfD+8Aw5X7TNdpnwkd5icPmBmj34T07pCuEK0T5Xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: Laruence <laruence@php.net>, "devis@lucato.it" <devis@lucato.it>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>, "RQuadling@gmail.com" <RQuadling@gmail.com>, 
	Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174789088bdd6604ad28f251
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] __constructor parameter limitations.
From: colder@php.net (Etienne Kneuss)

--0015174789088bdd6604ad28f251
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 20:08, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:

> Hi!
>
>  On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 17:08, Laruence<laruence@php.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> class A           { public function init($a, $b) { } }
>>>>
>>>> class B extends A { public function init($a) { } }
>>>>
>>>> =>  PHP Strict Standards:  Declaration of B::init() should be compatible
>>>>
>>> with
>>>
>>>> that of A::init()
>>>>
>>>  do you know any reason for this?
>>>
>>>
>> The reason for this is simply that B must act like A since every B object
>> is
>> also an object of A.
>>
>
> This is not a real reason, it's just repeating it. All B is saying in fact
> "I'm going to ignore everything but the first parameter", and there's no
> real reason not to allow it to do that. There's no "act" that makes B
> incompatible with A here, this warning is completely useless.
>

Right, In this very specific case the error should not be outputted, the
check could be refined to let that pass. Just it it may be refined to handle
contravariant typehints correctly


>
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
> (408)454-6900 ext. 227
>



-- 
Etienne Kneuss
http://www.colder.ch

--0015174789088bdd6604ad28f251--