Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84818
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <A6.E5.29489.6E165055@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 11:41:39 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6D.2C.32765.10EC0055@pb1.pair.com>	<5500D967.5040800@gmail.com> <CAFMT4NqLaj6G2P9W0dhYc50yt27mmNP1vE+A=c_nYSqTotncUQ@mail.gmail.com> <13.69.64353.73451055@pb1.pair.com> <5501876C.3020107@gmail.com> <3D.85.42021.3E7A1055@pb1.pair.com> <5501B77D.5010800@gmail.com> <85.D1.24603.247C1055@pb1.pair.com> <5501D328.9040800@gmail.com> <98.26.24603.C9DE1055@pb1.pair.com> <5501F823.3060805@gmail.com> <B9.68.24603.1F222055@pb1.pair.com> <55028793.5040606@googlemail.com> <04.FE.24603.D5CB2055@pb1.pair.com> <5503D9E8.1090008@googlemail.com> <57.60.52108.BE854055@pb1.pair.com> <5504712D.4010103@googlemail.com> <55049B17.2060000@deroetzi.de> <550558AB.9010402@googlemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <550558AB.9010402@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] static constructor
From: mail@deroetzi.de (Johannes Ott)

Am 15.03.2015 um 11:02 schrieb Crypto Compress:
> 
>> I think I now get the misunderstanding I had on your destructor question
> 
> Sorry for confusion. My points are agnostic about implementation details
> and concrete code. It's up to ppl to use this feature as they like.
> 

Okay get your point, but as already discussed several times, the rfc
should not be declined for the reason a ppl, who doesn't understand when
to use static context or when not to use at all, can do crucial things.
Because he although can do without the static constructor.

For a horiffic example:

class Example {

     private static $handler;

     public function open() {
         self::$handler = fopen('example.txt');
     }

     ...

}

Example::open();

Indeed I have the opinion some beginner who is doing such horiffic code
maybe think more about what he is doing and especially about the side
effects inside a so called "magic" method, then outside.


> - first point is a logical conclusion: If there is a cctor, there should
> be a cdtor.

Okay the logical conclusion I can take in count. But doing 15 years of
OOP-programming now, I never had the need to have a cdtor, for a "valid"
usage of static context. And still after I have seen your examples,
which should all be done, as I explained, with instances instead of
direct static binding, I don't see the use case for a cdtor.

> - second point is about implicit order: Shutdown process will free in
> reversed creation order. Classes don't have guaranteed creation order.
> 

But I hope shutdown process of PHP is as intelligent not do unload a
class which is needed in another class before this class?!

Regards,
-- 
DerOetzi