Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53697&edit=1
ID: 53697
Comment by: pablick at gmail dot com
Reported by: pablick at gmail dot com
Summary: "new" keyword vs. call_user_func
Status: Open
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package: Class/Object related
Operating System: Irrelevant
PHP Version: 5.3.5
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
The importance of this bug is just in simplicity: If one wants to have a
static method named "new", that will be creating instances (singletons
or
any other controlled process of instantiation), it's more convenient to
have a class method named "new" in the API docs rather than having to
type
ClassName::getNewInstance().
Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2011-01-08 15:03:33] pablick at gmail dot com
Description:
------------
When one defines a class with __callStatic() which under some
circumstances
accepts method name of "new", it may not be called. However, with
__call(), it may
be called. May be solved using call_user_func(), but that loses the nice
syntax.
Personally, I don't get it why "new" is parsed as T_NEW after "Base::"
and not
after $base->.
Test script:
---------------
<?php
class Base {
public static function __callStatic($method, $args) {
if ($method == 'new')
echo 'Base::new() called successfully';
}
public function __call($method, $args) {
if ($method == 'new')
echo '$base->new() called successfully';
}
}
$base = Base::new();
call_user_func(array('Base', 'new');
$base = new Base;
$base->new();
?>
Expected result:
----------------
Base::new() called successfully
Base::new() called successfully
$base->new() called successfully
Actual result:
--------------
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_NEW, expecting T_STRING or
T_VARIABLE or
'$' in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\test.php on line 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53697&edit=1
