Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:67487
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <519E8ADB.90202@sugarcrm.com>
References: <6b642a96e673c29dbaf2f239be15f7f6.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com>
	<519E8ADB.90202@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 14:11:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH6F-upB9tbRotx5YGE4vyZwi0yi5+gOgs9QV3vu8KZryw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net>, 
	Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Lynch <ceo@l-i-e.com>, "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd760c4c786b804dd75b1fc
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Cannot call constructor
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--047d7bd760c4c786b804dd75b1fc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>wro=
te:

> Hi!
>
> > Right now, to avoid this situation, you have to do:
> > if (method_exists(get_parent_class(), '__construct'))
> > parent::__construct();
> >
> > If you don't check for the method existing, you get:
> > Fatal error: Cannot call constructor ...
>
> This makes a lot of sense. I think we also discussed this idea some time
> ago, but it didn't go anywhere that time...


last time it was discussed on the list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg50504.html
to summarize it:
Etienne was arguing that for the concrete example (Spl classes) it would be
better to make sure that the object is properly initialized so having a
constructor in the spl classes.
Anthony was the only one who was against the idea of removing the error
when you call a parent constructor which doesn't (explicitly) have one.
Otherwise everybody else seemed to agree with the above change and only the
implementation was discussed:
- we should remove the error completelly
- we should make the error less serious (please don't do this)
- we should always create a common ancestor for every class by default
which have an empty constructor/destructor
- we should always create an empty constructor/desctructor for every class
without it.

So maybe we could discuss this and based on the feedback create an rfc
(with or without a vote for the alternative implementations).
--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--047d7bd760c4c786b804dd75b1fc--