Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » Static vs. non static »

Static vs. non static

php.internals

Marcus Börger

20 years ago
Hello internals, right now we allow 'class::method()' like syntax but not 'class->method() like. If noone comes up with a valid reason why i am forced to call a parents method using static syntax i'll commit the little required change. We could even add an E_STRICT when the old syntax is used where not applicable. But right now i don't see that message as neccessary unless people want to disallow misuse of the old synatx any time later. Best regards, Marcus

Andi Gutmans

20 years ago
Yes, this was by design. Via class it should be ::method() and via object it should be ->method(). Why do you think this is wrong? I think it actually makes a lot of sense and don't see what we gain from allowing to call self->method(). If there's a good reason, I'd be open to it though. And please next time give people a chance to reply to your email, especially on a weekend, before commiting a patch. Why do you send an email if you don't want to hear an answer? Andi At 10:32 AM 1/22/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:

Dmitry Stogov

20 years ago
Andi, Marcus didn't commit this patch. BTW: I am glad with existing syntax and semantic and don't see any reason to change them. They are simular to other programming languages. Thanks. Dmitry.

Andi Gutmans

20 years ago
Thanks for pointing that out. I confused the earlier CVS commit with this change. At 11:12 PM 1/22/2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:

Lukas Smith

20 years ago
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Yes, this was by design. Via class it should be ::method() and via > object it should be ->method(). > Why do you think this is wrong? I think it actually makes a lot of sense > and don't see what we gain from allowing to call self->method(). If > there's a good reason, I'd be open to it though.
I just gave a course in PHP5 OOP and this syntax overlap with static calls that do not end up being static seems confusing. If I get Marcus proposal properly he would then allow changing things from: parent::method(); to parent->method(); This would add a totally separate syntax, which would make it clear to users that this is in fact not a static call. It looks ugly, but I understand what he is aiming at. regards, Lukas

Sebastian Bergmann

20 years ago
Lukas Smith schrieb:
> If I get Marcus proposal properly he would then allow changing things > from: > parent::method(); > > to > > parent->method();
If that is the case, then it would be consistent to allow this->method() this->attribute parent->attribute too, no? (Note that I am not advocating the above, I am just being curious about consistency issues.)
-- Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/ GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69

Marcus Börger

20 years ago
Hello Andi, Sebastian, Monday, January 23, 2006, 9:25:29 AM, Sebastian wrote:
> Lukas Smith schrieb: >> If I get Marcus proposal properly he would then allow changing things >> from: >> parent::method(); >> >> to >> >> parent->method();
> If that is the case, then it would be consistent to allow
> this->method() > this->attribute > parent->attribute
parent->method() would work attributes are more than discussable and i don'T think we need anything more than $this->attibute for dynamic attibutes. And since you cannot overload protected or public attibutes or hide base class attibutes there is no need to provide a means of skipping hierarchy levels. If i was very pedantic i'd not propose 'baseclass->method()' but the formal correct '$this->baseclass::method()'. However i see the former as a very handy and clear shortcut. Another reason to go with the shortcut is that once we'd allow '$this->baseclass::method()' people would start to ask for '$obj->classname::method()' which is at somepoints usefull but is not exactly the KISS approach. Best regards, Marcus

Dmitry Stogov

20 years ago
Hi Marcus, I like parent::foo() mach more then parent->foo() and mach-mach more then $this->parent::foo(). Marcus, could you please explain why do you like to change syntax? Are you looking from ZE or SPL side? :) (I just saw that your latest patches were releated to static methods). Thanks. Dmitry.

Andi Gutmans

20 years ago
As you're using this in the context of the object, I don't think it's too confusing. I actually find the latter more confusing and think it's best to stick to what we have today. Andi At 12:08 AM 1/23/2006, Lukas Smith wrote: