But a class is not defined at runtime, it's only compiled into bytecode that, when executed, declares the class. That's what Zeev means when he says that the difference between compile-time and runtime is not that big.
IMHO there is room for both aggregate and MI. We have require and include, not just include? :-) - Stig On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 00:16, Marcus Börger wrote: > Mybe it would make sence to have MI for compile time and aggregation > for run time. So we can have good design with MI and prototyping and > testing and quick hacks with aggregeation. But doing compile times work > with run time methods? > > marcus > > At 23:58 08.04.2002, you wrote: > >If MI can be emulated using aggregation, how hard would it be to add the > >syntax for MI to the language, but have it implement it using aggregation? > > > >Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > > At 00:44 09/04/2002, brad lafountain wrote: > > >>If aggregation is included then i see it is absoulty necessary to include > > >>MI too. > > > > > > In my opinion, only one of them (at most) has room in PHP. Having both is > > > messy. My personal preference is MI, which is why I prefer tagging > > > aggregation as experimental. > > > > > > Zeev > > > > > > > >-- > >PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> > >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > -- > PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
