FAQ
This should cause much fun with classes implementing multiple interfaces....


""Dmitry Stogov"" <dmitry@zend.com> wrote in message
news:001e01c640f6$efcb7a20$6e02a8c0@thinkpad...
Well :)

I don't say that the patch is wrong, the question itself is disputable.

PHP doesn't allow multiple constructors, so if some class will implement
interface with constructor.
This calss (and all its subcalsses?) will not able to change constructor's
prototype

Havent we mess with subclasses?

Thanks. Dmitry.
-----Original Message-----
From: Derick Rethans
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:52 AM
To: Dmitry Stogov
Cc: 'Marcus Boerger'; zend-engine-cvs@lists.php.net; Andi Gutmans
Subject: RE: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 /
zend_compile.c php-src/tests/classes
ctor_in_interface_01.phpt ctor_in_interface_02.phpt
ctor_in_interface_03.phpt ctor_in_interface_04.phpt
interface_construct.phpt

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:

Is it your answer to my "break label" patch? :(

I didn't see final PDM's decision about constructor in
interfaces. And
I didn't see any discussion about this, however may be I missed it.
The PDM notes say:

Issue: Currently it is not possible to define a
__construct() signature
in an interface.

Discussion: We didn't see a reason why this shouldn't
be allowed, but
Andi seems to have a reason for it.

Conclusions:

1. Zeev asks Andi why he doesn't want constructors in the
interface. If there is no sound reason we add this
possibility.

Nothing like that happened... so I guess it's not important enough to
Andi anymore? :)
The question about constructors in interfaces is not
simple, and both
points of view make sense. So I would like to see your and others
arguments?
At the PDM we didn't find *any* reasons why we *don't* allow it... so
why not just allow it?

Derick

--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org

Search Discussions

  • Marcus Boerger at Mar 6, 2006 at 7:07 pm
    Hello l0t3k,

    there is nothing new here besides that fact that now you can also have a
    method with the name '__construct' in an interface. Nothing else changed.

    marcus

    Monday, March 6, 2006, 1:42:50 PM, you wrote:
    This should cause much fun with classes implementing multiple interfaces....
    ""Dmitry Stogov"" <dmitry@zend.com> wrote in message
    news:001e01c640f6$efcb7a20$6e02a8c0@thinkpad...
    Well :)

    I don't say that the patch is wrong, the question itself is disputable.

    PHP doesn't allow multiple constructors, so if some class will implement
    interface with constructor.
    This calss (and all its subcalsses?) will not able to change constructor's
    prototype

    Havent we mess with subclasses?

    Thanks. Dmitry.
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Derick Rethans
    Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:52 AM
    To: Dmitry Stogov
    Cc: 'Marcus Boerger'; zend-engine-cvs@lists.php.net; Andi Gutmans
    Subject: RE: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 /
    zend_compile.c php-src/tests/classes
    ctor_in_interface_01.phpt ctor_in_interface_02.phpt
    ctor_in_interface_03.phpt ctor_in_interface_04.phpt
    interface_construct.phpt

    On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:

    Is it your answer to my "break label" patch? :(

    I didn't see final PDM's decision about constructor in
    interfaces. And
    I didn't see any discussion about this, however may be I missed it.
    The PDM notes say:

    Issue: Currently it is not possible to define a
    __construct() signature
    in an interface.

    Discussion: We didn't see a reason why this shouldn't
    be allowed, but
    Andi seems to have a reason for it.

    Conclusions:

    1. Zeev asks Andi why he doesn't want constructors in the
    interface. If there is no sound reason we add this
    possibility.

    Nothing like that happened... so I guess it's not important enough to
    Andi anymore? :)
    The question about constructors in interfaces is not
    simple, and both
    points of view make sense. So I would like to see your and others
    arguments?
    At the PDM we didn't find *any* reasons why we *don't* allow it... so
    why not just allow it?

    Derick

    --
    Derick Rethans
    http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org



    Best regards,
    Marcus
  • Mike Lively at Mar 6, 2006 at 7:23 pm
    I am guessing he is referring to the fact that it becomes increasingly
    likely that you will have more interfaces declaring __construct. If any
    two interfaces declare construct with a different signature then by
    definition those two interfaces will be incompatible.

    It just means that interface authors will have to put some more thought
    into their design decisions now or they could end up with slightly more
    unusable code.
    On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 20:07 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
    Hello l0t3k,

    there is nothing new here besides that fact that now you can also have a
    method with the name '__construct' in an interface. Nothing else changed.

    marcus

    Monday, March 6, 2006, 1:42:50 PM, you wrote:
    This should cause much fun with classes implementing multiple interfaces....
    ""Dmitry Stogov"" <dmitry@zend.com> wrote in message
    news:001e01c640f6$efcb7a20$6e02a8c0@thinkpad...
    Well :)

    I don't say that the patch is wrong, the question itself is disputable.

    PHP doesn't allow multiple constructors, so if some class will implement
    interface with constructor.
    This calss (and all its subcalsses?) will not able to change constructor's
    prototype

    Havent we mess with subclasses?

    Thanks. Dmitry.
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Derick Rethans
    Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:52 AM
    To: Dmitry Stogov
    Cc: 'Marcus Boerger'; zend-engine-cvs@lists.php.net; Andi Gutmans
    Subject: RE: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 /
    zend_compile.c php-src/tests/classes
    ctor_in_interface_01.phpt ctor_in_interface_02.phpt
    ctor_in_interface_03.phpt ctor_in_interface_04.phpt
    interface_construct.phpt

    On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:

    Is it your answer to my "break label" patch? :(

    I didn't see final PDM's decision about constructor in
    interfaces. And
    I didn't see any discussion about this, however may be I missed it.
    The PDM notes say:

    Issue: Currently it is not possible to define a
    __construct() signature
    in an interface.

    Discussion: We didn't see a reason why this shouldn't
    be allowed, but
    Andi seems to have a reason for it.

    Conclusions:

    1. Zeev asks Andi why he doesn't want constructors in the
    interface. If there is no sound reason we add this
    possibility.

    Nothing like that happened... so I guess it's not important enough to
    Andi anymore? :)
    The question about constructors in interfaces is not
    simple, and both
    points of view make sense. So I would like to see your and others
    arguments?
    At the PDM we didn't find *any* reasons why we *don't* allow it... so
    why not just allow it?

    Derick

    --
    Derick Rethans
    http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org



    Best regards,
    Marcus
  • Marcus Boerger at Mar 6, 2006 at 7:28 pm
    Hello Mike,

    right, but those are considerations one has to do with any member of an
    interface.

    best regards
    marcus

    Monday, March 6, 2006, 8:23:36 PM, you wrote:
    I am guessing he is referring to the fact that it becomes increasingly
    likely that you will have more interfaces declaring __construct. If any
    two interfaces declare construct with a different signature then by
    definition those two interfaces will be incompatible.
    It just means that interface authors will have to put some more thought
    into their design decisions now or they could end up with slightly more
    unusable code.
    On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 20:07 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
    Hello l0t3k,

    there is nothing new here besides that fact that now you can also have a
    method with the name '__construct' in an interface. Nothing else changed.

    marcus

    Monday, March 6, 2006, 1:42:50 PM, you wrote:
    This should cause much fun with classes implementing multiple interfaces....
    ""Dmitry Stogov"" <dmitry@zend.com> wrote in message
    news:001e01c640f6$efcb7a20$6e02a8c0@thinkpad...
    Well :)

    I don't say that the patch is wrong, the question itself is disputable.

    PHP doesn't allow multiple constructors, so if some class will implement
    interface with constructor.
    This calss (and all its subcalsses?) will not able to change constructor's
    prototype

    Havent we mess with subclasses?

    Thanks. Dmitry.
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Derick Rethans
    Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:52 AM
    To: Dmitry Stogov
    Cc: 'Marcus Boerger'; zend-engine-cvs@lists.php.net; Andi Gutmans
    Subject: RE: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 /
    zend_compile.c php-src/tests/classes
    ctor_in_interface_01.phpt ctor_in_interface_02.phpt
    ctor_in_interface_03.phpt ctor_in_interface_04.phpt
    interface_construct.phpt

    On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:

    Is it your answer to my "break label" patch? :(

    I didn't see final PDM's decision about constructor in
    interfaces. And
    I didn't see any discussion about this, however may be I missed it.
    The PDM notes say:

    Issue: Currently it is not possible to define a
    __construct() signature
    in an interface.

    Discussion: We didn't see a reason why this shouldn't
    be allowed, but
    Andi seems to have a reason for it.

    Conclusions:

    1. Zeev asks Andi why he doesn't want constructors in the
    interface. If there is no sound reason we add this
    possibility.

    Nothing like that happened... so I guess it's not important enough to
    Andi anymore? :)
    The question about constructors in interfaces is not
    simple, and both
    points of view make sense. So I would like to see your and others
    arguments?
    At the PDM we didn't find *any* reasons why we *don't* allow it... so
    why not just allow it?

    Derick

    --
    Derick Rethans
    http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org



    Best regards,
    Marcus



    Best regards,
    Marcus

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupphp-internals @
categoriesphp
postedMar 6, '06 at 1:13p
activeMar 6, '06 at 7:28p
posts4
users3
websitephp.net

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase