Hi Robin, Thank you for catching this issue. static:: make no sense in compile-time constants. I've just forbidden it there.
Thanks. Dmitry. > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Fernandes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 6:45 PM > To: internals@lists.php.net > Cc: Stanislav Malyshev; Baptiste Autin; Zoe Slattery; Dmitry > Stogov; Marcus Boerger; Lukas Kahwe Smith; Michael Lively; > Etienne Kneuss; Andi Gutmans > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [patch] Late static bindings (LSB) > > > Sorry to persist with this, but I think it could be really > useful to clarify the meaning of static:: outside of method > bodies... particularly since parent:: and self:: can already > behave very strangely in such scenarios (see > http://news.php.net/php.internals/32443 ). > > For example, I find the following behaviour with the current patch > counter-intuitive: > > <?php > // NOTE: X is not related to A. > class X { > const MY_CONST = "I am completely unrelated to class A."; > static function createA() { > new A; // triggers initialiser evaluation > } > } > > class A { > const MY_CONST = "const A"; > public $p = static::MY_CONST; > static function getInstance() { > return new A; > } > } > > // First instantiate A inside X. This causes A's properties' > // default values to be evaluated within X's scope. X::createA(); > > // Now that A's default values have been evaluated, > // behaviour is as if any new instance of A treats > // the occurrence of static:: on line 12 to mean X. > > // Instantiate A inside A: > $a = A::getInstance(); > var_dump($a->p); // has value of X::MY_CONST. > > // Instantiate A at global scope: > $a = new A(); > var_dump($a->p); // has value of X::MY_CONST. > ?> > > Actual output: > string(37) "I am completely unrelated to class A." > string(37) "I am completely unrelated to class A." > > > Some thoughts: > - static:: could simply be forbidden in all class > property/constant default values. > - Any occurrences of static:: in instance property default > values could behave as if they were in the constructor, but > be forbidden in static property and constant initialisers. > - Other ideas? > > > Also, there are some questions around reflection. All of the following > A::reflect*() calls cause a fatal error like: > PHP Fatal error: Undefined class constant 'MY_CONST' in %s > on line %d > > <?php > class A { > const MY_CONST = "const A"; > const C1 = static::MY_CONST; > > static function f($a = static::MY_CONST) { > return $a; > } > > static function f2() { > static $x = static::MY_CONST; > } > > > static function reflectConst() { > $rc = new ReflectionClass('A'); > var_dump($rc->getConstant('C1')); > } > > static function reflectArg() { > $rm = new ReflectionMethod('A::f'); > $rps = $rm->getParameters(); > var_dump($rps[0]->getDefaultValue()); > } > > static function reflectStat() { > $rm = new ReflectionMethod('A::f2'); > var_dump($rm->getStaticVariables()); > } > > } > > A::reflectConst(); // fatal error > A::reflectArg(); // fatal error > A::reflectStat(); // fatal error > ?> > > Is this desirable? One could argue that the reflection calls > emanate from A::, so static:: could be resolved accordingly. > This test case suggests that static:: is in fact being bound > to the ReflectionClass class itself (since > ReflectionClass::IS_FINAL===64) : > > <?php > class A { > const IS_FINAL = "This string is not integer sixty-four"; > const C1 = static::IS_FINAL; > } > > $rc = new ReflectionClass('A'); > $rc->getConstant('C1'); // trigger evaluation of A::C1 > > var_dump(A::C1); > ?> > > Actual output: > int(64) > > > Kind regards, > Robin > > On 27/09/2007, Jingcheng Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > static methods seem exactly like dynamic binded methods now, is > > there any chance that "abstract static function" being > restored from > > E_STRICT limitation? Currently it is allowed in interfaces, but > > forbidden in abstract class, I don't know why php > implements "static > > method" in this way, this seems strange.. Thanks! > > > > On 9/27/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > So, if I understand you well, Stanislas, you are personally not > > > > much > > > into > > > > "static::" but more into making that sort of code working : > > > > > > > > interface iC { > > > > public $structure; > > > > } > > > > abstract class A implements iC { > > > > public function display() { > > > > echo self::$structure; > > > > } > > > > } > > > > class B extends A { > > > > static public $structure = "This is a string."; > > > > } > > > > $b = new B(); > > > > $b->display(); > > > > > > No, I don't think we should make interfaces with > variables, I'm just > > > telling that the code before had API that not allowed correctly > > > enforce its requirements. > > > -- > > > Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ > > > (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Jingcheng Zhang > > Room 304, Dormitory 26 of Yuquan Campus, Zhejiang > University P.R.China > > > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
