Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98658
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <59a94e8d-5a2e-bcee-4918-362b1d6bebf8@fleshgrinder.com>
References: <CAOv67gvSwcecO30_ufkH7D0HyZ9inqnCq9yQHrfL_t50vri3hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <59a94e8d-5a2e-bcee-4918-362b1d6bebf8@fleshgrinder.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:41:13 -0300
Message-ID: <CADyq6sLozyFKDYh0syY1ETGW=LC=2Ho-u7RtQk9PN-nG9yw_HA@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Cc: Wes <netmo.php@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0438e8f556ad054bcd212f
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Allow abstract function override
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--94eb2c0438e8f556ad054bcd212f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hey Folks,

Sorry, my mistake on detecting the BC break. I had a misconception about
how `ReflectionMethod#getDeclaringClass()` works. I thought that the
declaring class was the declaring abstraction, but it's actually always
pointing to the most concrete implementation in the inheritance.

See https://3v4l.org/t7PiL

Code, for reference:

<?php

class Thing {}

interface Foo {
    public function bar($baz) : Thing;
}

interface Bar extends Foo {
    public function bar($baz) : Thing;
}

final class Baz implements Bar
{
    public function bar($baz) : Thing
    {
        return new Thing;
    }
}

var_dump((new
ReflectionClass(Foo::class))->getMethod('bar')->getDeclaringClass()->getName());
// expected `Foo`, it actually is `Foo`
var_dump((new
ReflectionClass(Bar::class))->getMethod('bar')->getDeclaringClass()->getName());
// expected `Foo`, got `Bar` (my assumption was wrong)
var_dump((new
ReflectionClass(Baz::class))->getMethod('bar')->getDeclaringClass()->getName());
// expected `Foo`, got `Baz` (my assumption was wrong)

This is my mistake, as I didn't verify my assumption on code before
reporting the BC break. Sorry again - changing my vote to `yes`, as the
discussed covariance/contravariance changes make sense for interfaces as
well.

Greets,

Marco Pivetta

http://twitter.com/Ocramius

http://ocramius.github.com/

--94eb2c0438e8f556ad054bcd212f--