Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:8808
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:10:50 +0200
Reply-To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
Message-ID: <193608357171.20040328191050@marcus-boerger.de>
To: Luna Kid <lunakid@neuropolis.org>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <20040328165557.65979.qmail@pb1.pair.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040315080605.01732e80@127.0.0.1>
 <5.1.0.14.2.20040315080605.01732e80@127.0.0.1>
 <5.1.0.14.2.20040315174015.0a198dd0@127.0.0.1>
 <20040328165557.65979.qmail@pb1.pair.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: class constants in RC1 - why not __self:: then?
From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger)

Hello Luna,

Sunday, March 28, 2004, 6:56:00 PM, you wrote:

> "Andi Gutmans" <andi@zend.com> wrote in message
> news:5.1.0.14.2.20040315174015.0a198dd0@127.0.0.1...
>> At 10:07 AM 3/15/2004 -0500, Hans Lellelid wrote:
>> > ...
>> >You must now use self::MY_CONST to reference the class constant.  While I
>> >can see that the pre-RC1 behavior would not provide a way to access global
>> >constant if class had const of same name ... I figured I'd ask anyway
>> >whether this change is intended or a side-effect of some other fix.  I
>> >fall into the category of people who were really enjoying not having to
>> >specify self:: before (so now I have a lot of code to fix, apparently).
>> ...
>> I fixed it intentionally. That piece of code was left over from the days of
>> our broken namespaces implementation where we would do two lookups. Methods
>> were fixed a long time ago but we forgot to remove the old code from constants.
>>
>> Andi


> Well, I guess there is no easy solution, but anyhow, this is still very unfortunate.

> The basic "Don't Repeat Yourself" (or "DRY") principle, which could forunately
> eliminate the

>     function Classname() { // constructor

> syntax replacing it with the much cleaner and saner __construct (THANKS!!!),
> now fails to prevent creeping in of another sort of harmful hardcoded redundancy
> to our code...

> I'd say I'd rather pay the price of any double lookup any day than loading my code
> with useless duplication of information.

> As a cheap and effective compromise, would that be a possible to introduce something
> like a

>     __thisclass

> keyword so that those of us who are concerned about code duplication could avoid
> this newly introduced unnecessary repeating of class names when qualifying consts
> within the defining class?

> This way (writing __thisclass::MYCONST instead of MyParticularClassName::CONST
> we could freely decide to favor clean style, or performance, depending on the specific
> situation.


No need for that we have 'self':
php -r 'class c { const c="Hello\n"; static function f() { return self::c; }} echo c::f();'



-- 
Best regards,
 Marcus                            mailto:helly@php.net