Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68057 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 82729 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2013 19:53:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Jul 2013 19:53:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain cypressintegrated.com designates 173.1.104.101 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 173.1.104.101 rproxy2-b-iv.figureone.com Windows 2000 SP2+, XP SP1 (seldom 98 4.10.2222) Received: from [173.1.104.101] ([173.1.104.101:55509] helo=rproxy2-b-iv.figureone.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 64/20-15343-65184D15 for ; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:53:59 -0400 Received: from localhost ([216.220.114.66]) by rproxy2-b-iv.figureone.com (Brand New Heavy v1.0) with ASMTP id OAE94554 for ; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 12:53:54 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:53:07 -0400 Reply-To: Sanford Whiteman X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <495445283.20130703155307@cypressintegrated.com> To: Ralf Lang In-Reply-To: <51D477C5.6020907@b1-systems.de> References: <1668753851.20130703140514@cypressintegrated.com> <51D46981.7050902@b1-systems.de> <1579496223.20130703144829@cypressintegrated.com> <51D477C5.6020907@b1-systems.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New feature: sequential constructors From: swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com (Sanford Whiteman) > No, that's why I am asking. Why is it an anti-pattern to call a known > super constructor? Guess I'd send you to my comments in the earlier thread as I think I exhausted my ability to dismantle (advisory a..k.a. "pretty please") Call Super there. Or "?call super antipattern". Of course, most every antipattern began as a brand name for a common approach, then once it graduated to a non-judgmental recommendation the backlash began. The cynic in me knows that some patterns are declared anti- so they can make developers feel cool about their code even if it works no more efficiently, is no better documented, and is only negligibly more manageable than "uncool" stuff. Nevertheless I find the arguments against Call Super compelling even in a closed environment where you control your own API. YMMV... -- S.