Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66705
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.210.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACv1KMhRhEgCvKuE3k1HfDpE1X191xAVDFwKph7ySzn7qim7bw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACv1KMh_ahrK=bqsESzBq50KmfQxmZht-NR6Dc8acykMt1e06w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJbumGNP=fAcQABrxa_1P1m0KcazEXp731PfSc0kHi23673xKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+_UWzpccY6NQkwHpnfw7P37nfK003zwACj6LA1gA+=YSj-PyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJbumGNs-yUBktBvvDOGRTcgteX_JsqQmspd+GQSOAo8KgvrAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAEi=BO8qVJNe_Yi0=9vSn7MgDjPi=cCU8K2241O420OQM9X4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20.05.17382.B0318415@pb1.pair.com>
	<CAJbumGM6x4icDPpDfmR3dz1C9wkwrBsj8ouOgP9=HrRKGkcWBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F.50.28284.AA918415@pb1.pair.com>
	<CAJbumGMfU5mj9ngPSSYNQC0sgMb5W8dOmJ40SygWz8YxCFSxRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAEi=BNqvzETejStaAuJMP79gu5EG2vRhCaqPLtp10Dy-bb0Mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACv1KMhRhEgCvKuE3k1HfDpE1X191xAVDFwKph7ySzn7qim7bw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:28:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH6b19VmT-y9PkXp1QX5nXQBgNA+a7=DmwRy9CZhE2BVRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniele Orlando <dnl.rlnd@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Development <internals@lists.php.net>, Pierre du Plessis <pierre@pcservice.co.za>, 
	Bruno CHALOPIN <bruno@chalopin.fr>, =?UTF-8?Q?Mat=C4=ABss_Roberts_Treinis?= <mrtreinis@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93411e70378e904d84a7012
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] __invokeStatic() method
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--14dae93411e70378e904d84a7012
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Daniele Orlando <dnl.rlnd@gmail.com> wrote=
:

> It is clear to me that there are valid reasons to say yes to this proposa=
l,
> but there are a lot to say no too.
> Even if it could be interesting in theory, due to of how PHP handles
> collisions between classes and functions names (no check at all),
> implementing a callable class could break existing code.
>
> At the moment a class and a function with the same name can coexist,
> but implementing a callable class would mess this state of affairs.
> With the adoption of the namespaces, I think that this collisions could
> became
> so rare to not exist, but of course we cannot ignore pre existing
> situations.
>
> As suggested by Patrick Schaaf, a workaround is to implement a function,
> with
> the same name of the class, that behaves like a wrapper for a method call=
.
> It is a good point, but has the negative side that it must be implemented
> for every
> class who follow this pattern. It is not usable in a framework for exampl=
e.
>
> It seams that to handle consistently a callable class is to modify PHP
> to treat functions/classes names case sensitive and to trigger an
> E_WARNING (or similar) in case of collision.
> In this way new code could take advantage of the new syntax and old code
> could simply suppress the warning.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
pls don't top post on this list.
about the idea: I think that it would be a really major change and doing
that for the sake of a feature which only a small percentage of the
userbase would ever use seems to be a bad idea.


--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--14dae93411e70378e904d84a7012--