Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55508 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70286 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2011 00:27:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Sep 2011 00:27:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.173 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.173 smtp173.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.173] ([67.192.241.173:42801] helo=smtp173.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 3A/65-28880-B8C867E4 for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:27:56 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp17.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 12D90188328; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:27:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp17.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id A0C2B188218; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E768C86.3030307@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:27:50 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: PHP internals References: <4E74E5A0.2030006@sugarcrm.com> <4E76320F.6010904@sugarcrm.com> <4E764137.9080507@sugarcrm.com> <4E7685DE.6010805@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] __constructor parameter limitations. From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! On 9/18/11 5:24 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > class foo{ > function __construct(){} > } > class bar extends foo{ > function__construct($a, $b){} > } Come on. This is not my example. My example was: class foo{ function __construct($a, $b){} } class bar extends foo{ function__construct(){} } I would expect people at least read what I write before replying - is it too much? I wrote "foo() is compatible with foo($a, $b)" not the other way around and in case it wasn't clear I gave specific example. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227