Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68691 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 36164 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2013 17:15:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Aug 2013 17:15:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.67 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.67 smtp67.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.67] ([108.166.43.67:51577] helo=smtp67.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 19/64-10946-4C18F125 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:15:50 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id D88A6148170; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:15:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp1.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id DDCB0148182; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:15:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <521F81C1.50600@sugarcrm.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:15:45 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patrick ALLAERT CC: Nikita Popov , PHP internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Signature compatibility: Number of arguments From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > I respectfully disagree. > > The first method requires at least one parameter (or two, depending on > the pending clarification in the other thread) , and the latest: zero > or more (or 1 or more). Yes, this is true. But how it is an objection? LSP allows to weaken preconditions, but not to strengthen them - that's exactly what happens. Any method call that worked for base class would also work for derived class, and some other, additional calls, would work too. >> Is it okay to change this? > > I see no reason to do so and I would say -0.5. The reason is that current situation does not match LSP requirements and serves no useful purpose. Especially the second one which literally has the same preconditions but for some weird reason is rejected. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227