Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56520
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain ralphschindler.com from 209.85.213.42 cause and error)
Message-ID: <4ECD3A9E.7090105@ralphschindler.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:25:34 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
CC: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <4EC578C9.4000408@ralphschindler.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1111180954250.5937@whisky> <CAEZPtU4FHG_PTezL+LbweftuRu4248Rgmo2HJLtSBFV=nNo9Lg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU4FHG_PTezL+LbweftuRu4248Rgmo2HJLtSBFV=nNo9Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changes to constructor signature checks
From: ralph@ralphschindler.com (Ralph Schindler)

Internals:

Time to summarize.

It is clear to me that internals is divided on this issue.  I don't 
think it's a large enough issue to drag on, even when I disagree with it 
- both theoretically and in practice.

For most OO developer, putting ctors as an abstract or in an interface 
would not happen anyway, so this does not affect them.

** The current change represents a minor break in BC, that should be 
noted in the manual. **

Also, a decision needs to be made on what to do with grandchildren.  As 
I mentioned, the following produces no E_FATAL and no warnings:

   abstract class A {  abstract public function __construct($a, $b); }
   class B extends A { public function __construct($a, $b) {} }
   class C extends B { public function __construct(ArrayObject $d) {}

While this is correct behavior to me (ability for concrete to use its 
own ctor), using the *current logic* strict signature checking enforced 
from an abstract, then the above is also wrong.

** Can we decide what to do with that situation? **

On 11/18/11 5:05 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> I strongly disagree, this encourages bad practices. We could however
> reduce the error level to warning.

I think this is a sufficient compromise- I don't see anything E_FATAL 
about a signature change in ctors (I actually see nothing wrong with it, 
but it's clear the community is divided there).

** Can we make that change? **


Thanks,
-ralph