No, if you use the reference logic, than the fact that BaseBeer is defined
to be a certain reference, is the meaning of it being constant. The
contents of the object this reference points to may change. You just have
to get used to the reference based logic.
That said, it doesn't make too much sense in my opinion to use constants to
hold objects, but if you see use for it, that's the way it's going to work...
Zeev
At 03:52 15/04/2002, medvitz wrote:
>Should it be the same object, though???
>
>I thought that the whole concept of a 'constant' was that it, well, was
>constant. Wouldn't it make more sense to auto-clone objects when they are
>accessed through a constant????
>
>Medvitz
>
>
>Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > It'll be the same object.
> >
> > At 17:33 14/04/2002, medvitz wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This may have been addressed already but:
> >>
> >>If I have the following code:
> >>
> >>class Beer
> >>{
> >> ...
> >>}
> >>
> >>$a = new Beer();
> >>
> >>define('BaseBeer', $a);
> >>
> >>$b = BaseBeer;
> >>
> >>
> >>Will $a & $b be the same object or will $b be a copy. (Under ZE2).
> >>
> >>
> >>Thx.
> >>
> >>Medvitz
> >>
> >>--
> >>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
