Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56408
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4EC69872.6060300@ralphschindler.com>
References: <4EC578C9.4000408@ralphschindler.com>
	<CAEZPtU6pgOoEwexbFtBraBhgXJUCYk=Qhop1=EbHyfK-Ntfc9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EC69872.6060300@ralphschindler.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:02:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7AA0VWGwQRE5i5t+nf9EAVt6QLTs8DQtROKuLOasK01Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ralph Schindler <ralph@ralphschindler.com>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changes to constructor signature checks
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Ralph Schindler
<ralph@ralphschindler.com> wrote:
> Hey Pierre,
>
> My perspective and expectations are framed by all sorts of existing
> literature as well as the discussions on this list. =A0It saddens me that=
 you
> did not address any of the points I've brought up. =A0And, I simply canno=
t
> tell what basis you have for your interpretation and opinion. It seems mo=
re
> like you're basing your interpretation on preference alone.


Again, no, I do not base my opinion on personal preferences. I only do
not buy too much from the 'let do it the PHP way' when it comes to OO,
and yes I slightly move to the strict side.

> The facts are this:
>
> 1) What we know and have been told is that PHP's signature checking is
> governed by Liskov Substitution Principle. =A0There are many references t=
o
> this in the list.

And for this exact case, it is correctly implemented as of now.

> 2) "Abstract Constructors" do not exist in any other language, for all
> intents and purposes, it's something we've invented:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?&q=3D%22abstract+constructor%22
>
> That's fine, so now the question is, how does this thing we've invented p=
lay
> in with our current implementation of a class based object model and how
> does it meet developer preexisting expectations?

A construct is a specialized method, that does not change a yota what
abstract methods are.

> Even you Pierre, once promoted "looseness"
> http://news.php.net/php.internals/25089 (Pierre)

Only the doom never changes their mind :-D


> 4) We should meet everyone's existing expectations, Rasmus talks about th=
is:

We should meet consistency with standard behaviors and then it is easy
to learn, for everyone.

Cheers,
--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org