Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:7276
Return-Path: <cschneid@cschneid.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 48187 invoked by uid 1010); 22 Jan 2004 15:45:49 -0000
Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net
Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 48163 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2004 15:45:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO xaxa.search.ch) (195.141.85.118)
  by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 22 Jan 2004 15:45:48 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by xaxa.search.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 153506D82E; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:45:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: by xaxa.search.ch (Postfix, from userid 65534)
	id 12F586DB6B; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:45:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from cschneid.com (ultrafilter2-i [192.168.85.3])
	by xaxa.search.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 786FF6D82E; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:45:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <400FF029.1090804@cschneid.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:45:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031009
X-Accept-Language: de-ch, en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephane Drouard <stephane.drouard@st.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
References: <20040122144819.42410.qmail@pb1.pair.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040122144819.42410.qmail@pb1.pair.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.7.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on 
	xaxa.search.ch
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham 
	version=2.61
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12pre8
Subject: Re: base class
From: cschneid@cschneid.com (Christian Schneider)

Stephane Drouard wrote:
> Currently it is not possible to call parent::__construct() if the
class does not derived
> from another one, or none of its parent implements a constructor.

I agree that it should always be possible to call parent::__construct()
(at least if a
base class exists :-)).

> __construct()
> __destruct()
>   Empty.

Agreed.
If the method actually exists or is somehow magic is an implementation
detail. But one should always be able to call
parent::__construct/__destruct.

> __clone()
>   Does the bit for bit copy of the object.

I think this and all other 'magic' methods you mention should be empty.
Right now a bit cloning is done before __clone() is called, I can live
with the minimal
performance penalty this might cause.

Keeps things simple and calling a non-implemented parent::__ never
causes any
harm like this.

- Chris