Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:8081 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46739 invoked by uid 1010); 23 Feb 2004 10:19:09 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46714 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2004 10:19:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO moutng.kundenserver.de) (212.227.126.177) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 23 Feb 2004 10:19:09 -0000 Received: from [212.227.126.209] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AvDB5-0007vv-00; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:19:07 +0100 Received: from [217.160.91.103] (helo=php.net) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AvDB5-0007Ye-00; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:19:07 +0100 Message-ID: <4039D383.3090509@php.net> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:18:43 +0100 Reply-To: hartmut@php-groupies.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7a) Gecko/20040111 X-Accept-Language: en, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Fuhs CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <1077090830.30573.1.camel@coogle.localdomain> <200402212010.53919.zhundiak@comcast.net> <1077427838.40383e7e58b76@webmail.purdue.edu> <1077428654.403841ae69a2f@webmail.purdue.edu> <1531020565718.20040222200739@marcus-boerger.de> <1077508403.403979332ff82@webmail.purdue.edu> In-Reply-To: <1077508403.403979332ff82@webmail.purdue.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de auth:4d0d1aa686edf46be04a942500a6c0af Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Static weirdness.. From: hartmut@php.net (Hartmut Holzgraefe) Josh Fuhs wrote: >>Quoting Josh Fuhs : >>If I'm not mistaken, Java does not allow calls to static methods via >>object instances. > > Sorry, I retract this. Someone just showed me an example of it. > > But it still seems like a bad practice. So why? as i stated before the only difference between static and non-static member functions is that non-static members *may* change the state of an instance while static members definetly won't From a callers point of view it is not even important to know that one is calling a static member when invoking the member function over an object instance, so why shouldn't it be callable like that? -- Hartmut Holzgraefe