Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85784 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 65548 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2015 16:39:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Apr 2015 16:39:34 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 93.193.71.58 p5DC1473A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de Received: from [93.193.71.58] ([93.193.71.58:12156] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id EF/33-41712-241FB255 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 12:39:31 -0400 Message-ID: To: internals@lists.php.net Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:39:25 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1428938604.3492.21.camel@kuechenschabe> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Posted-By: 93.193.71.58 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New RFC draft "static class constructor" From: mail@deroetzi.de (Johannes Ott) Am 13.04.2015 um 17:29 schrieb Benjamin Eberlei: > What would happen if you "call the parent constructor": > > class A extends B { > static public function __static() { > B::__static(); > } > } > Please have a closer look to the definition of the function: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor#proposal it should be declared "private" to prohibit any access from outside the of the class itself. Although see the the answer 2 in discussion section: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor#inheritance_of_the_class_constructor Thanks for feedback > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Johannes Schlüter > 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: >> > 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: >> > echo 'D: '.__FILE__.':'.__LINE__."\n"; >> >> C::$foo = 23; >> echo 'E: '.__FILE__.':'.__LINE__."\n"; >> >> include 'a.php'; >> echo 'F: '.__FILE__.':'.__LINE__."\n"; >> >> >> class C { >> static $foo = 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 >> >> > -- DerOetzi