Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:7673
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <1076347709.4027c33db98cc@hristov.com>
Date: Mon,  9 Feb 2004 19:28:29 +0200
To: internals@lists.php.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1
Subject: Changing the visibility of constructors?
From: php@hristov.com (Andrey Hristov)

Hello internals,
what's your opinion on whether the constructors must follow one of the
principles of the polymorphism - "The visibility in extending classes must be
the same or better".
Example :
class parent {
 public function __construct() {
 }
}
class child extends parent {
 private function __construct() {
 }
}
Currently this code emits a compilation error. If __construct was just a normal
then I won't ask, but since __construct() is the new of naming constructors and
they are special methods, which are never callen directly but by the engine
internally. So, should it be like this?


Andrey

P.S.
An workaround exists : the constructors must not be named __construct() but must
follow the old naming convention. In this case the engine does not complain.