Everything

php

Re: late static binding php6

php.internals

Mike Lively

18 years ago

Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

>> I realize that instance calls are a completely different ball game than
>> static  calls but LSB was supposed to give us the same flexibility.
>
> Actually, I don't think it was. If you want objects, why not use the
> real thing? LSB was created to solve just one particular problem -
> inability to distinguish A::method() from B::method() if B extends A.

Being one of the original people requesting this I would have to say
that you aren't completely accurate in that statement. That may have
been the goals of the most recent patch's collaborators but it certainly
wasn't mine. The reason I originally wanted it was because the way
statics were originally implemented was too rigid to do things that I
wanted to with them. LSB was a way to provide a flexible inheritance
model for static classes. This would allow for the framework creator's
dream of not having to instantiate objects for the sole purpose of
instantiating new objects:

$model = new Author();
$more_models = $model->findByName('Mike');

Instead you could place your 'factory' code into a base class as a
static and extend it appropriately. This goal was met, but with yet
another severe limitation in that you lose the ability to reimplement
after you extend. In my opinion this is foundational to object oriented
design and I know that alot of people agree with me. So in that vain
what's wrong with going the full length on a new feature that isn't set
in stone?

>
>> called class on. It would allow more complex forms of inheritanc
> "more complex" is not always better.

Rest assured that this is not the bad kind of 'more complex' I believe
that with a large number of OO programmers this is going to be more
natural. Bear in mind that this patch is in a large part geared to
please those people that though self:: should have referred to the
calling class to begin with. I can all but guarantee that you will be
hearing the same arguments about 'parent::' within a fairly short amount
of time after 5.3 goes out. Maybe then we will talk about 'Later Static
Binding' :P.

Stanislav Malyshev

18 years ago

> Rest assured that this is not the bad kind of 'more complex' I believe

I'm afraid I must disagree. The feature that was missing was to know the
true calling class name. That was implemented. You can build from it,
there's no need to add further complication to the language. You can
easily find out the calling class for static call, you can easily find
it's parent, provided one exists, you can easily call any method of this
class.

--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com   http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829   MSN: stas@zend.com

Jochem Maas

18 years ago

Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

>> Rest assured that this is not the bad kind of 'more complex' I believe
>
> I'm afraid I must disagree. The feature that was missing was to know the
> true calling class name. That was implemented. You can build from it,
> there's no need to add further complication to the language. You can
> easily find out the calling class for static call, you can easily find
> it's parent, provided one exists, you can easily call any method of this
> class.

class A {
static function find($id) {
// lets try and find a 'something'
}
}

class B extends A {}

// I'd like a 'B' please bob.
$b = B::find( 1 );



are you saying that A::find() can tell that it was called as B::find() ?

Mike Lively

18 years ago

Jochem Maas wrote:

> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
>>> Rest assured that this is not the bad kind of 'more complex' I believe
>>>
>> I'm afraid I must disagree. The feature that was missing was to know the
>> true calling class name. That was implemented. You can build from it,
>> there's no need to add further complication to the language. You can
>> easily find out the calling class for static call, you can easily find
>> it's parent, provided one exists, you can easily call any method of this
>> class.
>>
>
> class A {
> 	static function find($id) {
> 		// lets try and find a 'something'
> 	}
> }
>
> class B extends A {}
>
> // I'd like a 'B' please bob.
> $b = B::find( 1 );
>
>
>
> are you saying that A::find() can tell that it was called as B::find() ?
>

No, your example would work. WHere it breaks down is if you want to
specialize B::find();

class B extends A {
static function find($id) {
/* do something special */
parent::find($id);
}
}


in that situation A::find(); would not be able to know it was being
called by B::find() because parent:: is considered an explicit class
name reference.

Stanislav Malyshev

18 years ago

> in that situation A::find(); would not be able to know it was being
> called by B::find() because parent:: is considered an explicit class
> name reference.

It will be, just not by means of parent::.

--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com   http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829   MSN: stas@zend.com

Stanislav Malyshev

18 years ago

> class A {
> 	static function find($id) {
> 		// lets try and find a 'something'
> 	}
> }
>
> class B extends A {}
>
> // I'd like a 'B' please bob.
> $b = B::find( 1 );
>
>
>
> are you saying that A::find() can tell that it was called as B::find() ?

Yes, this is exactly what LSB does.

--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com   http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829   MSN: stas@zend.com