Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85782
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain beberlei.de from 209.85.212.179 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1428938604.3492.21.camel@kuechenschabe>
References: <CB.90.41712.5B6CB255@pb1.pair.com>
	<1428938604.3492.21.camel@kuechenschabe>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:29:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEPJdukpN0rAN_M961fk=1-QOM6ex_PdR+spVDJH8r4KwTx2Hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?= <johannes@schlueters.de>
Cc: Johannes Ott <mail@deroetzi.de>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7f24d5bd9d05139cc728
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New RFC draft "static class constructor"
From: kontakt@beberlei.de (Benjamin Eberlei)

--f46d043c7f24d5bd9d05139cc728
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What would happen if you "call the parent constructor":

class A extends B {
   static public function __static() {
        B::__static();
   }
}

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Johannes Schl=C3=BCter <johannes@schlueter=
s.de>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 15:37 +0200, Johannes Ott wrote:
> > finally I managed to do my first RFC draft.
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor
> >
> > I hope I have done everything correct so far and I'm looking forward to
> > your feedback on it.
>
> In my opinion this makes the language way more complex as there are more
> places which "suddenly" execute code but solves a small problem compared
> to that. (Which actually is an issue many people would suggest to avoid
> completely instead of ennobling this with a language feature.
>
> Why am I saying it makes the language more complex? - Your proposal
> seems to miss mentioning when exactly the method is executed. what is
> the output of
>
>
> a.php:
> <?php
> echo 'A: '.__FILE__.':'.__LINE__."\n";
> class A {
>     static function __static() {
>       echo __CLASS__.'::'.__METHOD__."\n";
>     }
> }
> echo 'B: '.__FILE__.':'.__LINE__."\n";
> class B {
>     static function __static() {
>       echo __CLASS__.'::'.__METHOD__."\n";
>     }
> }
> echo 'C: '.__FILE__.':'.__LINE__."\n";
> ?>
>
> b.php:
> <?php
> echo 'D: '.__FILE__.':'.__LINE__."\n";
>
> C::$foo =3D 23;
> echo 'E: '.__FILE__.':'.__LINE__."\n";
>
> include 'a.php';
> echo 'F: '.__FILE__.':'.__LINE__."\n";
>
>
> class C {
>     static $foo =3D 0;
>     static function __static() {
>       echo __CLASS__.'::'.__METHOD__."\n";
>     }
> }
>
> echo 'G: '.__FILE__.':'.__LINE__."\n";
>
> class D extends B {
>     static function __static() {
>       echo __CLASS__.'::'.__METHOD__."\n";
>     }
> }
>
> echo 'H: '.__FILE__.':'.__LINE__."\n";
> ?>
>
>
> Mind that in b.php we make use of class C above the declaration, which
> we can do as C is a simple class and can be bound early during
> compilation. Class D however can only be bound during run-time, after
> including a.php, which happens after C was already used.
>
> johannes
>
>

--f46d043c7f24d5bd9d05139cc728--