I was asking myself -- I had assumed that __construct() would be searched for first. I was /am under the impression __construct() is a special function that the engine wouldn't allow you to use in PHP5 in any other context than its intended purpose.
I don't know what Zeev plans on doing with this, but perhaps an option would be to issue a notice or warning if both A::A() and __construct() exist in a single class A and call __construct() in those cases... Just a thought. John >Perhaps i may be mistaken, but it seems logical to search for >the old-style constructor first in order to be backwards >compatible with old-style scripts. Putting __construct in old >style classes would yield a classname of '__construct', an >ugly and unlikely name for a class. Seeing as A::A() would be >much nicer, i can see the logic behind parsing the old-style >first, rather than the new-style. > >That's just my two cents, feel free to correct me otherwise.. > >~ Andrew Heebner > >> >> >__construct is the new method of defining a constructor, but the >> >'bug' you suspect is not a bug. The parser will search for a >> >function of the same name in the class as the constructor for >> >backwards compatibility with Older scripts, etc... >> >> But shouldn't __construct() be searched for and used prior to the >> old-style constructor? Intuitively it seems it should. >> >> John >> > > > >-- >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
