Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79127
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <54734DAC.7080706@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:24:28 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <546B0F62.1090705@gmail.com>	<CA+9eiLsyGN_z8hyxNFn3VPXWb5Gd0txB9Ks=sqzGxzh4USHudw@mail.gmail.com>	<546E3656.2010608@gmail.com>	<546EB8B3.3020807@gmail.com>	<CA+9eiLsp95Tk3DMbXNW191PnxbWeErDkjGK3XuL8scQ31+k6WA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9eiLt74yhxBVUQdufhmw6Z7Y9DS1BToYMeu0fC-YpV9AoCow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9eiLt74yhxBVUQdufhmw6Z7Y9DS1BToYMeu0fC-YpV9AoCow@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Default constructors
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

Dmitry Stogov wrote on 24/11/2014 09:56:
> However, I thought about one more inconsistent. Your patch works fine for
> "parent::" methods but not for "grandparents::"
> In the following code "default constructor" won't work.
>
> class A {
> }
> class B extends A {
> }
> class C extends B {
>    function __constructor() {
>      A::_constructor(); // this won't work
>    }
> }

I guess some inconsistency like this is hard to avoid unless the default 
constructor is actually added to the class's method table, because the 
code has to specifically check for each case that is to be supported.

At risk of flogging a dead horse, this is why I was arguing for the lazy 
evaluation with new keyword to be abandoned, because it seems like 
that's the primary compatibility issue with adding a "real" default 
definition. Reflection would show the method as either "internal" or 
inherited from some implicit base class.

 From a user's point of view there should really be no difference 
between "no constructor" and "constructor which does nothing", IMHO.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]