Brad Lafountain wrote: *SNIP* > But do you see my point that having ONLY aggregate means that in 90% of the > case where people will use it its probally a bad idea. They are only using it > becuase of the lack of MI. How does aggregation solve overwriting methods. > > class a > { > function blah() > { > echo "in a"; > } > } > > class b > { > function blah() > { > echo "in b"; > } > } > > class c > { > function blah() > { > echo "in c"; > } > } > > class d extends a,b,c > { > function blah() > { > echo a::blah() . b::blah() . c::blah(); > } > }
With MI, documentation can be generated easily using tools. *EASIER* to maintain code. > > how do you do that with aggregation? MI really is way different than > aggregation. > > I see aggregation used for adding methods to an existing class. > class a > { > function do_a() > { > } > } > class b > { > function do_b() > { > } > } > > $c = new stdclass; > aggregate($c, "a"); > aggregate($c, "b"); > $c->do_a(); > $c->do_b(); > With aggregate, auto generating documentation hard. *HARDER* (very hard, if one use it w/o good reason) to maintain code To me, aggregate is "GOTO" like feature. It's useful for sure, Howver _Never_ use unless there is very good reason. Therefore, it worth to have both MI and aggregate. IMHO -- Yasuo Ohgaki > > but i still don't like this... there are cleaner ways around that by using > members and/or MI. > > - Brad > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php