Top posting as the discussion was going a bit off topic. (Yes there was
a vote, but the rfc could do with some refinements.)
This is an illustration of the proposed change to the RFC, and the
absurdity of how trait's allow incompatible scopes, and give no similar
warning
Example1 - illustrates the problem that the traits hides the problems
that E_DEPRECATED/E_STRICT is trying to show.
Obviously in a compiled language this would be picked up, but we can not
do it in a scripted language.
trait test {
function a() {
// b does not exist in testb - so in theory $this is in an
incompatible scope.
// however no warning is raised as it's in a trait. - it just
says Fatal error....
$this->b();
}
}
class testb {
use test;
function testb() {
$this->a();
}
}
new testb();
Example2 - what should work without warnings.
class base { }
class testa extends base {
var $v = 'testa';
function a() {
// usage of $this elicits E_STRICT
// however, testa and testb share the same parent and may be
reasonably compatible.
// suggested fix - do not emit warning if $this (testb) and
(testa) both have the same top level parent or interface...
// in all other scenarios - emit E_DEPRECATED (eg. if $this ==
null, or some unrelated class)
echo $this->v;
}
}
class testb extends base {
var $v = 'testb';
function testb() {
testa::a();
}
}
new testb();
Regards
Alan
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 08:00 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I did a testable version in javascript the other day. - it's similar to
this..
Javascript is not really an OO language. It has objects, but it doesn't
really follow or enforce any of OO paradigms. It's prototype-based, so
things work differently there.
An almost secret vote, that as I mentioned before, this was unfortunate,
that nobody spotted this before, There was objections when it was first
There was not any "secret vote". It was announced on the list, just as
any other votes are. I understand one can miss stuff, but there was
nothing secret, it was standard process.
proposed, but that was not really mentioned in the rfc, and the vote was
done in 7 days with one message mention the start of the vote.
How many messages are necessary? Are we supposed to spam the list for
weeks in hope people would actually read it? I think one is perfectly
enough.
Why not make that E_STRICT actually useful, and change it so it only
occurs if the $this of the calling scope and the function do not share
the same top level parent.
What common top level parent has to do with it? If you call common
parent function, you don't need to call into wrong scope - you can call
it from the same scope. It's when you want to call method that is not in
your scope but pretend that it is - then you need wrong scope call. And
it's not supposed to work this way - you're not supposed call methods on
objects that don't have this method in their class.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
