Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65522
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.123 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <5109B421.4000805@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:00:33 -0800
Organization: SugarCRM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alan Knowles <alan@roojs.com>
CC: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <op.wq746rv5idpuyk@damnation.nl.lo.geleia.net> <op.wrmidlpiidpuyk@damnation.nl.lo.geleia.net> <debcd9bb-79f3-4b2c-aa66-9461018959c9@email.android.com> <op.wrmkyvlwidpuyk@damnation.nl.lo.geleia.net> <1460659e-237d-4c7c-8cfa-523ec857d646@email.android.com> <be26f8067c25e21448eb7f3fc21809b0@mail.gmail.com> <51074873.5090600@roojs.com> <51076233.2040507@sugarcrm.com> <5109A834.6070503@roojs.com>
In-Reply-To: <5109A834.6070503@roojs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Deprecate and remove calls from incompatible
 context (example of real usage that will break)
From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev)

Hi!

> I did a testable version in javascript the other day. - it's similar to 
> this..

Javascript is not really an OO language. It has objects, but it doesn't
really follow or enforce any of OO paradigms. It's prototype-based, so
things work differently there.

> An almost secret vote, that as I mentioned before, this was unfortunate, 
> that nobody spotted this before, There was objections when it was first 

There was not any "secret vote". It was announced on the list, just as
any other votes are. I understand one can miss stuff, but there was
nothing secret, it was standard process.

> proposed, but that was not really mentioned in the rfc, and the vote was 
> done in 7 days with one message mention the start of the vote.

How many messages are necessary? Are we supposed to spam the list for
weeks in hope people would actually read it? I think one is perfectly
enough.

> Why not make that E_STRICT actually useful, and change it so it only 
> occurs if the $this of the calling scope and the function do not share 
> the same top level parent.

What common top level parent has to do with it? If you call common
parent function, you don't need to call into wrong scope - you can call
it from the same scope. It's when you want to call method that is not in
your scope but pretend that it is - then you need wrong scope call. And
it's not supposed to work this way - you're not supposed call methods on
objects that don't have this method in their class.

-- 
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227