At 13:07 10/04/2002 -0700, brad lafountain wrote: > > I was thinking that we could have an explicit way of calling the right > one. > > hmm what would this look like? > > $a->c::print(); > i guess that's not that bad. and its kinda consistant > > but i do like > $a->c->print(); > too.. >
As I mentioned I'm not even sure this is needed. > and would we treat member of b and c the same way Nope. We would only do this for real methods. I think this is good enough and gives a clear interface! Andi > $a->member_of_c = false; > > then the collision again.... > $a->same_name_var = false; > > $a->c::same_name_var = false; > $a->b::same_name_var = false; > > or > > $a->c->same_name_var = false; > $a->b->same_name_var = false; > > > I do think that this by far the best solution because as I said it's > > extremely simple and it doesn't get us into most of the deep issues the > > other solutions get us into. > > I think in real life coding it will work extremely well. For each proposal > > you can find problems. > > > > >and how does this consern serilization. Would it need to be change do > > >designate > > >which objects are aggregated? > > > > Each object would know which objects it aggregates so I don't see a real > > big problem here. I guess potentially there are always problems when > > serializing nested objects. > > I wasn't thinking it would be a problem but the serialization could > would need >to change to handle this type of change. > >BTW: > Have you looked at my patch to handle method calls differently? > > - 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
