Everything

php

Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » php5 class initialization »

php5 class initialization

php.internals

t

22 years ago

<?php
class a
{
function __construct()
{
echo '__construct()';
}

function a()
{
echo 'a()';
}
}

$a=new a;
?>

Outputs ... a() ... when I would expect ... __construct() ... is this a bug,
some sort of new (only seeing this occur since RC1) feature, or some option
I'm supposed to switch off ?

Andi Gutmans

22 years ago

We use the last defined constructor. We fixed a problem in B4 where old
style constructors didn't always work.

Andi

At 12:30 AM 3/22/2004 +0000, t wrote:

Marcus Börger

22 years ago

Hello Andi,

Monday, March 22, 2004, 8:00:42 AM, you wrote:

> We use the last defined constructor. We fixed a problem in B4 where old
> style constructors didn't always work.

If so that's a bug. That's absolutley not understandable.

> Andi

> At 12:30 AM 3/22/2004 +0000, t wrote:
>><?php
>>class a
>>{
>>function __construct()
>>{
>>echo '__construct()';
>>}
>>
>>function a()
>>{
>>echo 'a()';
>>}
>>}
>>
>>$a=new a;
>>?>
>>
>>Outputs ... a() ... when I would expect ... __construct() ... is this a bug,
>>some sort of new (only seeing this occur since RC1) feature, or some option
>>I'm supposed to switch off ?
>>
>>--
>>PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>>To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

--
Best regards,
Marcus                            mailto:helly@php.net

Andi Gutmans

22 years ago

What would you expect? That if a new style constructor is defined we always
use that and allow old-style as regular method?

At 08:56 AM 3/22/2004 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:

Sebastian Bergmann

22 years ago

Andi Gutmans wrote:

> What would you expect? That if a new style constructor is defined we
> always use that and allow old-style as regular method?

- Old-Style Constructor Only: Use it, but issue E_STRICT.

- Old-Style and New-Style Constructor: Use the New-Style Constructor and
issue an E_STRICT.

--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/                   http://phpOpenTracker.de/

Das Buch zu PHP 5: http://professionelle-softwareentwicklung-mit-php5.de/

Andi Gutmans

22 years ago

At 11:36 AM 3/22/2004 +0100, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:

>Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > What would you expect? That if a new style constructor is defined we
> > always use that and allow old-style as regular method?
>
>   - Old-Style Constructor Only: Use it, but issue E_STRICT.
>
>   - Old-Style and New-Style Constructor: Use the New-Style Constructor and
>     issue an E_STRICT.

I'm not sure if E_STRICT isn't a bit too aggressive. Most people will want
to use E_STRICT IMO but have lots and lots of classes such as PEAR classes
which use old-style constructors. I don't want them to turn off E_STRICT
because of this.

Andi

Sebastian Bergmann

22 years ago

Andi Gutmans wrote:

> Most people will want to use E_STRICT IMO but have lots and lots of
> classes such as PEAR classes which use old-style constructors.

Point taken. But the above does not hold for both styles in the same
class for which I highly recommend the E_STRICT.

--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/                   http://phpOpenTracker.de/

Das Buch zu PHP 5: http://professionelle-softwareentwicklung-mit-php5.de/

Andi Gutmans

22 years ago

At 12:12 PM 3/22/2004 +0100, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:

>Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > Most people will want to use E_STRICT IMO but have lots and lots of
> > classes such as PEAR classes which use old-style constructors.
>
>   Point taken. But the above does not hold for both styles in the same
>   class for which I highly recommend the E_STRICT.

We already have an E_STRICT for that.

Andi

Sebastian Bergmann

22 years ago

Andi Gutmans wrote:

> We already have an E_STRICT for that.

Good :)

--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/                   http://phpOpenTracker.de/

Das Buch zu PHP 5: http://professionelle-softwareentwicklung-mit-php5.de/

Andrei Zmievski

22 years ago

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:

> What would you expect? That if a new style constructor is defined we always
> use that and allow old-style as regular method?

Yep.

- Andrei

George Schlossnagle

22 years ago

On Mar 23, 2004, at 11:53 AM, Andrei Zmievski wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>> What would you expect? That if a new style constructor is defined we
>> always
>> use that and allow old-style as regular method?
>
> Yep.

I agree with the part about the new-style constructor always being
preferred to the old-style constructor, but besides being really
confusing, where do you being able to call the old-style as a regular
method coming in handy?

George

Andrei Zmievski

22 years ago

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, George Schlossnagle wrote:

> I agree with the part about the new-style constructor always being
> preferred to the old-style constructor, but besides being really
> confusing, where do you being able to call the old-style as a regular
> method coming in handy?

I don't really. I just think if they both exist then the old style
constructor should be a regular method.

- Andrei

Rasmus Lerdorf

22 years ago

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, George Schlossnagle wrote:

> On Mar 23, 2004, at 11:53 AM, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> >> What would you expect? That if a new style constructor is defined we
> >> always
> >> use that and allow old-style as regular method?
> >
> > Yep.
>
>
> I agree with the part about the new-style constructor always being
> preferred to the old-style constructor, but besides being really
> confusing, where do you being able to call the old-style as a regular
> method coming in handy?

I could see people doing:

class foo {
function foo() {
...constructor stuff...
}
function __construct() {
$this->foo();
}
}

In order to make the class work on both PHP4 and PHP5 in which case it
would be essential for foo() to be callable as a regular method in the
class.

-Rasmus

Christian Schneider

22 years ago

Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

> I could see people doing:
>
>   class foo {
>     function foo() {
>        ...constructor stuff...
>     }
>     function __construct() {
>        $this->foo();
>     }
>   }

Why not just leave out __construct in this case? Or am I missing
something? This looks pretty ugly to me. And if you really, really want
it you can still have a method init() which is called by foo() and
__construct().

- Chris

Brad Fisher

22 years ago

Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

> I could see people doing:
>
>   class foo {
>     function foo() {
>        ...constructor stuff...
>     }
>     function __construct() {
>        $this->foo();
>     }
>   }

I actually prefer it the other way around...  foo would call __construct in
PHP4, and __construct would be called directly in PHP5 (with foo being
ignored).  As I understand the docs on php.net regading PHP5, the __construct
method has precedence over foo as a constructor.  I've also run into a case
where a class worked fine in PHP4 and not in PHP5 because of a method
existing with the same name as the class.  It was seen as a constructor, and
not a method, even though it is always called statically.  For example:

class Log {
function log($msg) {
// Log the message here
}
}

Always called as:
Log::log("log this message");

No instance of Log is ever created, which seemed to work in PHP4, but throws
errors in PHP5 about not being able to call Log::log statically (I assume
because it thinks its a constructor).  This probably isn't good practice to
use this sort of naming, but I didn't even think of Log::log as a constructor
in this case since the object itself is never instanciated.  Of course with
the static method/class qualifiers in PHP5, I could explicity way that in the
syntax, but such things aren't BC with PHP4...

> In order to make the class work on both PHP4 and PHP5 in which case it
> would be essential for foo() to be callable as a regular method in the
> class.

Yes, I like the unified constructor concept, and doing it this way makes that
work in PHP4 as well (at least as long as you have a base class which
implements both forms of constructors).

-Brad

Rasmus Lerdorf

22 years ago

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Brad Fisher wrote:

> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> > I could see people doing:
> >
> >   class foo {
> >     function foo() {
> >        ...constructor stuff...
> >     }
> >     function __construct() {
> >        $this->foo();
> >     }
> >   }
>
> I actually prefer it the other way around...  foo would call __construct in
> PHP4, and __construct would be called directly in PHP5 (with foo being
> ignored).  As I understand the docs on php.net regading PHP5, the __construct
> method has precedence over foo as a constructor.  I've also run into a case
> where a class worked fine in PHP4 and not in PHP5 because of a method
> existing with the same name as the class.  It was seen as a constructor, and
> not a method, even though it is always called statically.

Sure, but George was asking for a case.  I think the case where you have
some existing PHP4 code that you want to make minimal changes to but you
might have a little bit of PHP5-specific code to run in the constructor I
could see this sort of chaining being something people want.  I am not
saying that is the way people should create a portable class, just that I
could see such code popping up.  And the question was what to do about the
old-style constructor method.  I think it would be very confusing if it
was some sort of illegal method name that wasn't callable.

-Rasmus

George Schlossnagle

22 years ago

On Mar 23, 2004, at 1:11 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Brad Fisher wrote:
>
> Sure, but George was asking for a case.  I think the case where you
> have
> some existing PHP4 code that you want to make minimal changes to but
> you
> might have a little bit of PHP5-specific code to run in the
> constructor I
> could see this sort of chaining being something people want.  I am not
> saying that is the way people should create a portable class, just
> that I
> could see such code popping up.  And the question was what to do about
> the
> old-style constructor method.  I think it would be very confusing if it
> was some sort of illegal method name that wasn't callable.

You sold me on the usefulness.

George

Stanislav Malyshev

22 years ago

RL>> Sure, but George was asking for a case.  I think the case where you have
RL>> some existing PHP4 code that you want to make minimal changes to but you
RL>> might have a little bit of PHP5-specific code to run in the constructor I
RL>> could see this sort of chaining being something people want.  I am not

Why the said people won't just insert the PHP5-specific code right into
the constructor? Why they need the second one?

--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
stas@zend.com  http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.109

Rasmus Lerdorf

22 years ago

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

> RL>> Sure, but George was asking for a case.  I think the case where you have
> RL>> some existing PHP4 code that you want to make minimal changes to but you
> RL>> might have a little bit of PHP5-specific code to run in the constructor I
> RL>> could see this sort of chaining being something people want.  I am not
>
> Why the said people won't just insert the PHP5-specific code right into
> the constructor? Why they need the second one?

To avoid having it in 2 places.

-Rasmus

Andi Gutmans

22 years ago

At 09:16 AM 3/23/2004 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 2004, at 11:53 AM, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > >> What would you expect? That if a new style constructor is defined we
> > >> always
> > >> use that and allow old-style as regular method?
> > >
> > > Yep.
> >
> >
> > I agree with the part about the new-style constructor always being
> > preferred to the old-style constructor, but besides being really
> > confusing, where do you being able to call the old-style as a regular
> > method coming in handy?
>
>I could see people doing:
>
>   class foo {
>     function foo() {
>        ...constructor stuff...
>     }
>     function __construct() {
>        $this->foo();
>     }
>   }
>
>In order to make the class work on both PHP4 and PHP5 in which case it
>would be essential for foo() to be callable as a regular method in the
>class.

This is possible already.

Andi

Andi Gutmans

22 years ago

At 09:16 AM 3/23/2004 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

> > I agree with the part about the new-style constructor always being
> > preferred to the old-style constructor, but besides being really
> > confusing, where do you being able to call the old-style as a regular
> > method coming in handy?
>
>I could see people doing:
>
>   class foo {
>     function foo() {
>        ...constructor stuff...
>     }
>     function __construct() {
>        $this->foo();
>     }
>   }
>
>In order to make the class work on both PHP4 and PHP5 in which case it
>would be essential for foo() to be callable as a regular method in the
>class.

Didn't see the context :)

Andi

Marcus Börger

22 years ago

Hello Andi,

Monday, March 22, 2004, 11:24:03 AM, you wrote:

> What would you expect? That if a new style constructor is defined we always
> use that and allow old-style as regular method?

exactly - and we had that before RC1-final.

marcus

Andi Gutmans

22 years ago

We had a compile-error which I changed to E_STRICT :)
I think we should make __construct the default if it is present.

Andi

At 08:42 PM 3/23/2004 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:

Marcus Börger

22 years ago

Hello Andi,

Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 10:24:09 PM, you wrote:

> We had a compile-error which I changed to E_STRICT :)
> I think we should make __construct the default if it is present.

that'd be great.

marcus