Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1 ID: 53081 Comment by: keith at madsync dot com Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods Status: Not a bug Type: Feature/Change Request Package:Class/Object related PHP Version:5.3.3 Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: "abstract" means required implementation by subclasses, "static" means declared on the class. ignoring the internals of php's construction for a moment, and how difficult proper implementation of the feature might be, these are orthogonal concepts. "abstract static function X" means "classes extending this one must declare static method X." right now in order to enforce a static contract, i have to use an interface *and* an abstract class. this means more code and more distributed functionality in my codebase. worse, i have to remember to implement the interface on every child class, which almost defeats the purpose of having the interface in the first place - "class A extends Letter implements IAlphabet + abstract class Letter" rather than "class A extends Letter + abstract class Letter implements IAlphabet." and the only purpose of IAlphabet is to enforce that A contains some static method? ugh. that should be Letter's job, it's why i made it abstract in the first place. allowing static and abstract to work together as the orthogonal concepts they are leads to simpler, more readable, better-distributed code, and doesn't require i instantiate objects for functionality not related to object state. the fact that the static method on the parent class is not a part of the child's inheritance seems to me irrelevant. please include this feature again in future releases. Previous Comments: [2013-01-08 23:18:13] jon at langevin dot me Valid issue, please re-classify as a bug. This is not a feature request. [2012-01-19 18:20:39] andy at andy-burton dot co dot uk Still get strict warning in 5.3.2 - static abstract classes in 5.3 make perfect sense to me, no idea why this is flagged as bogus! [2010-11-14 19:10:34] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it ... [2010-10-20 16:47:42] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it i know... could someone analyze my request please? i know that a lot of bug reports are bogus, but not all [2010-10-17 13:59:48] cmanley at xs4all dot nl Georgio, Your example makes perfect sense. I just wish the bug handlers wouldn't be so rude as to flag valid reports as bogus when users spend effort to report these bugs with examples. There's nothing bad about having abstract static methods in a language that finally supports static inheritance (since PHP 5.3). This is normal practice in other languages too so E_STRICT shouldn't be emitted. The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081 -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: jon at langevin dot me
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Not a bug
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
Valid issue, please re-classify as a bug. This is not a feature request.
Previous Comments:
[2012-01-19 18:20:39] andy at andy-burton dot co dot uk
Still get strict warning in 5.3.2 - static abstract classes in 5.3 make perfect
sense to me, no idea why this is flagged as bogus!
[2010-11-14 19:10:34] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
...
[2010-10-20 16:47:42] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
i know... could someone analyze my request please? i know that a lot of bug
reports are bogus, but not all
[2010-10-17 13:59:48] cmanley at xs4all dot nl
Georgio,
Your example makes perfect sense. I just wish the bug handlers wouldn't be so
rude
as to flag valid reports as bogus when users spend effort to report these bugs
with examples.
There's nothing bad about having abstract static methods in a language that
finally supports static inheritance (since PHP 5.3). This is normal practice in
other languages too so E_STRICT shouldn't be emitted.
[2010-10-17 02:56:08] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
simplified case
abstract class AFSItem
{
public static functiongetIfValid ($fullPath)
{
// i use static::isValid to get the method defined in the called class
if(static::isValid($fullPath)) return new static($fullPath);
}
protected function__construct ($fp){}
// i want to force real classes to implement a way to check a path before
instance an object
protected abstract static functionisValid ($fullPath); //
abstract declaration
}
class File extends AFSItem
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation
{
return is_file($fullPath);
}
}
class Dir extends AFSItem
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation
{
return is_dir($fullPath);
}
}
class Image extends File
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation with override
{
if(parent::isValid($fullPath) AND (bool)getimagesize($fullPath))
return true; return false;
}
}
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: andy at andy-burton dot co dot uk
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
Still get strict warning in 5.3.2 - static abstract classes in 5.3 make perfect
sense to me, no idea why this is flagged as bogus!
Previous Comments:
[2010-11-14 19:10:34] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
...
[2010-10-20 16:47:42] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
i know... could someone analyze my request please? i know that a lot of bug
reports are bogus, but not all
[2010-10-17 13:59:48] cmanley at xs4all dot nl
Georgio,
Your example makes perfect sense. I just wish the bug handlers wouldn't be so
rude
as to flag valid reports as bogus when users spend effort to report these bugs
with examples.
There's nothing bad about having abstract static methods in a language that
finally supports static inheritance (since PHP 5.3). This is normal practice in
other languages too so E_STRICT shouldn't be emitted.
[2010-10-17 02:56:08] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
simplified case
abstract class AFSItem
{
public static functiongetIfValid ($fullPath)
{
// i use static::isValid to get the method defined in the called class
if(static::isValid($fullPath)) return new static($fullPath);
}
protected function__construct ($fp){}
// i want to force real classes to implement a way to check a path before
instance an object
protected abstract static functionisValid ($fullPath); //
abstract declaration
}
class File extends AFSItem
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation
{
return is_file($fullPath);
}
}
class Dir extends AFSItem
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation
{
return is_dir($fullPath);
}
}
class Image extends File
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation with override
{
if(parent::isValid($fullPath) AND (bool)getimagesize($fullPath))
return true; return false;
}
}
[2010-10-17 02:03:36] cmanley at xs4all dot nl
This bug (emitting E_STRICT for abstract static methods in PHP 5.3 while static
inheritance has finally been implemented) leads to another bug that I recently
submitted: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53086
These are definately different bugs, but this bug spawns the other one which is
more catestrophic.
If you don't see the bug, then add E_STRICT to your error reporting:
error_reporting(E_ALL | E_STRICT);
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
...
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-20 16:47:42] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
i know... could someone analyze my request please? i know that a lot of
bug reports are bogus, but not all
[2010-10-17 13:59:48] cmanley at xs4all dot nl
Georgio,
Your example makes perfect sense. I just wish the bug handlers wouldn't
be so rude
as to flag valid reports as bogus when users spend effort to report
these bugs
with examples.
There's nothing bad about having abstract static methods in a language
that
finally supports static inheritance (since PHP 5.3). This is normal
practice in
other languages too so E_STRICT shouldn't be emitted.
[2010-10-17 02:56:08] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
simplified case
abstract class AFSItem
{
public static functiongetIfValid ($fullPath)
{
// i use static::isValid to get the method defined in the
called class
if(static::isValid($fullPath)) return new static($fullPath);
}
protected function__construct ($fp){}
// i want to force real classes to implement a way to check a path
before instance an object
protected abstract static functionisValid ($fullPath); //
abstract declaration
}
class File extends AFSItem
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation
{
return is_file($fullPath);
}
}
class Dir extends AFSItem
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation
{
return is_dir($fullPath);
}
}
class Image extends File
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation with override
{
if(parent::isValid($fullPath) AND
(bool)getimagesize($fullPath)) return true; return false;
}
}
[2010-10-17 02:03:36] cmanley at xs4all dot nl
This bug (emitting E_STRICT for abstract static methods in PHP 5.3 while
static
inheritance has finally been implemented) leads to another bug that I
recently
submitted: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53086
These are definately different bugs, but this bug spawns the other one
which is
more catestrophic.
If you don't see the bug, then add E_STRICT to your error reporting:
error_reporting(E_ALL | E_STRICT);
[2010-10-16 20:23:31] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Strict Standards: Static function cA::B() should not be abstract in
..\www\index.php on line 6
5.3.3
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
i know... could someone analyze my request please? i know that a lot of
bug reports are bogus, but not all
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-17 13:59:48] cmanley at xs4all dot nl
Georgio,
Your example makes perfect sense. I just wish the bug handlers wouldn't
be so rude
as to flag valid reports as bogus when users spend effort to report
these bugs
with examples.
There's nothing bad about having abstract static methods in a language
that
finally supports static inheritance (since PHP 5.3). This is normal
practice in
other languages too so E_STRICT shouldn't be emitted.
[2010-10-17 02:56:08] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
simplified case
abstract class AFSItem
{
public static functiongetIfValid ($fullPath)
{
// i use static::isValid to get the method defined in the
called class
if(static::isValid($fullPath)) return new static($fullPath);
}
protected function__construct ($fp){}
// i want to force real classes to implement a way to check a path
before instance an object
protected abstract static functionisValid ($fullPath); //
abstract declaration
}
class File extends AFSItem
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation
{
return is_file($fullPath);
}
}
class Dir extends AFSItem
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation
{
return is_dir($fullPath);
}
}
class Image extends File
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation with override
{
if(parent::isValid($fullPath) AND
(bool)getimagesize($fullPath)) return true; return false;
}
}
[2010-10-17 02:03:36] cmanley at xs4all dot nl
This bug (emitting E_STRICT for abstract static methods in PHP 5.3 while
static
inheritance has finally been implemented) leads to another bug that I
recently
submitted: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53086
These are definately different bugs, but this bug spawns the other one
which is
more catestrophic.
If you don't see the bug, then add E_STRICT to your error reporting:
error_reporting(E_ALL | E_STRICT);
[2010-10-16 20:23:31] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Strict Standards: Static function cA::B() should not be abstract in
..\www\index.php on line 6
5.3.3
[2010-10-16 19:42:48] ras...@php.net
Which strict warning do you get? I don't see one.
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: cmanley at xs4all dot nl
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
Georgio,
Your example makes perfect sense. I just wish the bug handlers wouldn't
be so rude
as to flag valid reports as bogus when users spend effort to report
these bugs
with examples.
There's nothing bad about having abstract static methods in a language
that
finally supports static inheritance (since PHP 5.3). This is normal
practice in
other languages too so E_STRICT shouldn't be emitted.
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-17 02:56:08] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
simplified case
abstract class AFSItem
{
public static functiongetIfValid ($fullPath)
{
// i use static::isValid to get the method defined in the
called class
if(static::isValid($fullPath)) return new static($fullPath);
}
protected function__construct ($fp){}
// i want to force real classes to implement a way to check a path
before instance an object
protected abstract static functionisValid ($fullPath); //
abstract declaration
}
class File extends AFSItem
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation
{
return is_file($fullPath);
}
}
class Dir extends AFSItem
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation
{
return is_dir($fullPath);
}
}
class Image extends File
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation with override
{
if(parent::isValid($fullPath) AND
(bool)getimagesize($fullPath)) return true; return false;
}
}
[2010-10-17 02:03:36] cmanley at xs4all dot nl
This bug (emitting E_STRICT for abstract static methods in PHP 5.3 while
static
inheritance has finally been implemented) leads to another bug that I
recently
submitted: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53086
These are definately different bugs, but this bug spawns the other one
which is
more catestrophic.
If you don't see the bug, then add E_STRICT to your error reporting:
error_reporting(E_ALL | E_STRICT);
[2010-10-16 20:23:31] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Strict Standards: Static function cA::B() should not be abstract in
..\www\index.php on line 6
5.3.3
[2010-10-16 19:42:48] ras...@php.net
Which strict warning do you get? I don't see one.
[2010-10-16 19:39:13] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
so, felipe says that is not a bug and hes right
rasmus you say that this code is correct, but i still get a strict
warning
abstract class cA {
static function A(){static::B();}
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA {
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
simplified case
abstract class AFSItem
{
public static functiongetIfValid ($fullPath)
{
// i use static::isValid to get the method defined in the
called class
if(static::isValid($fullPath)) return new static($fullPath);
}
protected function__construct ($fp){}
// i want to force real classes to implement a way to check a path
before instance an object
protected abstract static functionisValid ($fullPath); //
abstract declaration
}
class File extends AFSItem
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation
{
return is_file($fullPath);
}
}
class Dir extends AFSItem
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation
{
return is_dir($fullPath);
}
}
class Image extends File
{
protected static function isValid ($fullPath) //
implementation with override
{
if(parent::isValid($fullPath) AND
(bool)getimagesize($fullPath)) return true; return false;
}
}
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-17 02:03:36] cmanley at xs4all dot nl
This bug (emitting E_STRICT for abstract static methods in PHP 5.3 while
static
inheritance has finally been implemented) leads to another bug that I
recently
submitted: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53086
These are definately different bugs, but this bug spawns the other one
which is
more catestrophic.
If you don't see the bug, then add E_STRICT to your error reporting:
error_reporting(E_ALL | E_STRICT);
[2010-10-16 20:23:31] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Strict Standards: Static function cA::B() should not be abstract in
..\www\index.php on line 6
5.3.3
[2010-10-16 19:42:48] ras...@php.net
Which strict warning do you get? I don't see one.
[2010-10-16 19:39:13] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
so, felipe says that is not a bug and hes right
rasmus you say that this code is correct, but i still get a strict
warning
abstract class cA {
static function A(){static::B();}
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA {
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
[2010-10-16 09:37:51] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
no more a change request
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53082
bug reported
thank you Rasmus!
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: cmanley at xs4all dot nl
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
This bug (emitting E_STRICT for abstract static methods in PHP 5.3 while
static
inheritance has finally been implemented) leads to another bug that I
recently
submitted: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53086
These are definately different bugs, but this bug spawns the other one
which is
more catestrophic.
If you don't see the bug, then add E_STRICT to your error reporting:
error_reporting(E_ALL | E_STRICT);
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-16 20:23:31] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Strict Standards: Static function cA::B() should not be abstract in
..\www\index.php on line 6
5.3.3
[2010-10-16 19:42:48] ras...@php.net
Which strict warning do you get? I don't see one.
[2010-10-16 19:39:13] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
so, felipe says that is not a bug and hes right
rasmus you say that this code is correct, but i still get a strict
warning
abstract class cA {
static function A(){static::B();}
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA {
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
[2010-10-16 09:37:51] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
no more a change request
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53082
bug reported
thank you Rasmus!
[2010-10-16 09:27:47] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
ok it is a php bug, it is related to files and namespaces...
if you put this in global space works (no error triggered)
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
Strict Standards: Static function cA::B() should not be abstract in
..\www\index.php on line 6
5.3.3
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-16 19:42:48] ras...@php.net
Which strict warning do you get? I don't see one.
[2010-10-16 19:39:13] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
so, felipe says that is not a bug and hes right
rasmus you say that this code is correct, but i still get a strict
warning
abstract class cA {
static function A(){static::B();}
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA {
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
[2010-10-16 09:37:51] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
no more a change request
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53082
bug reported
thank you Rasmus!
[2010-10-16 09:27:47] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
ok it is a php bug, it is related to files and namespaces...
if you put this in global space works (no error triggered)
[2010-10-16 09:01:34] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
i'm investigating about my error
Static function FSItem::ensurePathIsValid() should not be abstract
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
so, felipe says that is not a bug and hes right
rasmus you say that this code is correct, but i still get a strict
warning
abstract class cA {
static function A(){static::B();}
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA {
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-16 09:37:51] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
no more a change request
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53082
bug reported
thank you Rasmus!
[2010-10-16 09:27:47] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
ok it is a php bug, it is related to files and namespaces...
if you put this in global space works (no error triggered)
[2010-10-16 09:01:34] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
i'm investigating about my error
Static function FSItem::ensurePathIsValid() should not be abstract
[2010-10-16 08:55:31] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
so this:
Dropped abstract static class functions. Due to an oversight, PHP 5.0.x
and 5.1.x allowed abstract static functions in classes. As of PHP 5.2.x,
only interfaces can have them.
is not valid no more in 5.3?
[2010-10-16 08:48:55] ras...@php.net
What's not allowed?
abstract class cA {
static function A(){static::B();}
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA {
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
This works fine. You obviously can't call self::B(), but static::B() is
fine.
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
no more a change request
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53082
bug reported
thank you Rasmus!
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-16 09:27:47] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
ok it is a php bug, it is related to files and namespaces...
if you put this in global space works (no error triggered)
[2010-10-16 09:01:34] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
i'm investigating about my error
Static function FSItem::ensurePathIsValid() should not be abstract
[2010-10-16 08:55:31] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
so this:
Dropped abstract static class functions. Due to an oversight, PHP 5.0.x
and 5.1.x allowed abstract static functions in classes. As of PHP 5.2.x,
only interfaces can have them.
is not valid no more in 5.3?
[2010-10-16 08:48:55] ras...@php.net
What's not allowed?
abstract class cA {
static function A(){static::B();}
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA {
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
This works fine. You obviously can't call self::B(), but static::B() is
fine.
[2010-10-16 08:45:08] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
but it is not allowed :(
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
ok it is a php bug, it is related to files and namespaces...
if you put this in global space works (no error triggered)
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-16 09:01:34] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
i'm investigating about my error
Static function FSItem::ensurePathIsValid() should not be abstract
[2010-10-16 08:55:31] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
so this:
Dropped abstract static class functions. Due to an oversight, PHP 5.0.x
and 5.1.x allowed abstract static functions in classes. As of PHP 5.2.x,
only interfaces can have them.
is not valid no more in 5.3?
[2010-10-16 08:48:55] ras...@php.net
What's not allowed?
abstract class cA {
static function A(){static::B();}
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA {
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
This works fine. You obviously can't call self::B(), but static::B() is
fine.
[2010-10-16 08:45:08] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
but it is not allowed :(
[2010-10-16 08:43:14] ras...@php.net
Right, that is exactly how it should work.
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
hi Rasmus, what an honor!
can you please give me some example code?
you are saying that self:: points to an abstract not-implemented
method?
for example:
abstract class cA
{
static function A(){self::B();}
abstract static function B();
}
in this case can be thrown an error, but using static:: the call refers
to the called class method, not the declaring class
static function A(){static::B();}
so it can be re-enabled in this case, no?
in php static methods are really powerful unlike java's, c#'s, don't
limit them!
why interfaces allows static abstract methods? how self:: is resolved?
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-16 07:21:47] ras...@php.net
Sorry, I re-read that explanation, that didn't make sense. I meant to
say that
methods in an abstract class require that any instance of that class
implement
those methods, but static methods belong to the class, not an instance.
You can't
call methods from an abstract class, you can only call them in instances
of that
class, but static methods by definition belong to the class, but since
you can't
call methods in an abstract class you could never call these static
methods so
there is no point in them being there.
[2010-10-16 07:15:35] ras...@php.net
A static method belongs to the class, not to an instance of that class
and since
you can't have an instance of an abstract class, static methods make no
sense in
abstract classes. It is really that simple.
[2010-10-16 06:58:55] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
sorry, corrected code:
abstract class FSItem
{
protected function __construct($path){}
// random per-item singleton
public static function getByPath($path)
{
if(static::isPathValid($path)) // here is the static method
call of classes. i want to check the path before instance it
return new static($path);
}
// abstract static method:
abstract protected static function isPathValid($path);
}
class Dir extends FSItem
{
//implementation:
protected static function isPathValid($path)
{
return is_dir($path);
}
}
class File extends FSItem
{
//implementation:
protected static function isPathValid($path)
{
return is_file($path);
}
}
class Image extends File
{
//implementation:
protected static function isPathValid($path)
{
return (bool)getimagesize($path);
}
}
[2010-10-16 06:55:35] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Description:
hi, i really can not understand why this was dropped, but imagine this
code
please read carefully and please examine my request before trash it
abstract class FSItem
{
// abstract static method:
abstract protected function isPathValid($path);
protected function __construct($path){}
// random per-item singleton
public static function getByPath($path)
{
if(static::isPathValid($path)) // here is the static method
call of classes. i want to check the path before instance it
return new static($path);
}
}
class Dir extends FSItem
{
//implementation:
protected function isPathValid($path)
{
return is_dir($path);
}
}
class File extends FSItem
{
//implementation:
protected function isPathValid($path)
{
return is_file($path);
}
}
class Image extends File
{
//implementation:
protected function isPathValid($path)
{
return (bool)getimagesize($path);
}
}
php changelog says:
Dropped abstract static class functions. Due to an oversight, PHP 5.0.x
and 5.1.x allowed abstract static functions in classes. As of PHP 5.2.x,
only interfaces can have them.
oversight what? it is a logical error? technical limitation?
thank you
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
i'm investigating about my error
Static function FSItem::ensurePathIsValid() should not be abstract
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-16 08:55:31] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
so this:
Dropped abstract static class functions. Due to an oversight, PHP 5.0.x
and 5.1.x allowed abstract static functions in classes. As of PHP 5.2.x,
only interfaces can have them.
is not valid no more in 5.3?
[2010-10-16 08:48:55] ras...@php.net
What's not allowed?
abstract class cA {
static function A(){static::B();}
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA {
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
This works fine. You obviously can't call self::B(), but static::B() is
fine.
[2010-10-16 08:45:08] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
but it is not allowed :(
[2010-10-16 08:43:14] ras...@php.net
Right, that is exactly how it should work.
[2010-10-16 08:36:35] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
i know, but:
abstract class cA
{
//static function A(){self::B();} error, undefined method
static function A(){static::B();} // good
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA
{
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
i know, but:
abstract class cA
{
//static function A(){self::B();} error, undefined method
static function A(){static::B();} // good
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA
{
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-16 08:27:01] ras...@php.net
No, you are calling a method in an abstract class. The fundamental
characteristic
of an abstract class is that you cannot call methods in them.
[2010-10-16 08:15:46] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
hi Rasmus, what an honor!
can you please give me some example code?
you are saying that self:: points to an abstract not-implemented
method?
for example:
abstract class cA
{
static function A(){self::B();}
abstract static function B();
}
in this case can be thrown an error, but using static:: the call refers
to the called class method, not the declaring class
static function A(){static::B();}
so it can be re-enabled in this case, no?
in php static methods are really powerful unlike java's, c#'s, don't
limit them!
why interfaces allows static abstract methods? how self:: is resolved?
[2010-10-16 07:21:47] ras...@php.net
Sorry, I re-read that explanation, that didn't make sense. I meant to
say that
methods in an abstract class require that any instance of that class
implement
those methods, but static methods belong to the class, not an instance.
You can't
call methods from an abstract class, you can only call them in instances
of that
class, but static methods by definition belong to the class, but since
you can't
call methods in an abstract class you could never call these static
methods so
there is no point in them being there.
[2010-10-16 07:15:35] ras...@php.net
A static method belongs to the class, not to an instance of that class
and since
you can't have an instance of an abstract class, static methods make no
sense in
abstract classes. It is really that simple.
[2010-10-16 06:58:55] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
sorry, corrected code:
abstract class FSItem
{
protected function __construct($path){}
// random per-item singleton
public static function getByPath($path)
{
if(static::isPathValid($path)) // here is the static method
call of classes. i want to check the path before instance it
return new static($path);
}
// abstract static method:
abstract protected static function isPathValid($path);
}
class Dir extends FSItem
{
//implementation:
protected static function isPathValid($path)
{
return is_dir($path);
}
}
class File extends FSItem
{
//implementation:
protected static function isPathValid($path)
{
return is_file($path);
}
}
class Image extends File
{
//implementation:
protected static function isPathValid($path)
{
return (bool)getimagesize($path);
}
}
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Open
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
sorry, corrected code:
abstract class FSItem
{
protected function __construct($path){}
// random per-item singleton
public static function getByPath($path)
{
if(static::isPathValid($path)) // here is the static method
call of classes. i want to check the path before instance it
return new static($path);
}
// abstract static method:
abstract protected static function isPathValid($path);
}
class Dir extends FSItem
{
//implementation:
protected static function isPathValid($path)
{
return is_dir($path);
}
}
class File extends FSItem
{
//implementation:
protected static function isPathValid($path)
{
return is_file($path);
}
}
class Image extends File
{
//implementation:
protected static function isPathValid($path)
{
return (bool)getimagesize($path);
}
}
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-16 06:55:35] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Description:
hi, i really can not understand why this was dropped, but imagine this
code
please read carefully and please examine my request before trash it
abstract class FSItem
{
// abstract static method:
abstract protected function isPathValid($path);
protected function __construct($path){}
// random per-item singleton
public static function getByPath($path)
{
if(static::isPathValid($path)) // here is the static method
call of classes. i want to check the path before instance it
return new static($path);
}
}
class Dir extends FSItem
{
//implementation:
protected function isPathValid($path)
{
return is_dir($path);
}
}
class File extends FSItem
{
//implementation:
protected function isPathValid($path)
{
return is_file($path);
}
}
class Image extends File
{
//implementation:
protected function isPathValid($path)
{
return (bool)getimagesize($path);
}
}
php changelog says:
Dropped abstract static class functions. Due to an oversight, PHP 5.0.x
and 5.1.x allowed abstract static functions in classes. As of PHP 5.2.x,
only interfaces can have them.
oversight what? it is a logical error? technical limitation?
thank you
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
so this:
Dropped abstract static class functions. Due to an oversight, PHP 5.0.x
and 5.1.x allowed abstract static functions in classes. As of PHP 5.2.x,
only interfaces can have them.
is not valid no more in 5.3?
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-16 08:48:55] ras...@php.net
What's not allowed?
abstract class cA {
static function A(){static::B();}
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA {
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
This works fine. You obviously can't call self::B(), but static::B() is
fine.
[2010-10-16 08:45:08] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
but it is not allowed :(
[2010-10-16 08:43:14] ras...@php.net
Right, that is exactly how it should work.
[2010-10-16 08:36:35] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
i know, but:
abstract class cA
{
//static function A(){self::B();} error, undefined method
static function A(){static::B();} // good
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA
{
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
[2010-10-16 08:27:01] ras...@php.net
No, you are calling a method in an abstract class. The fundamental
characteristic
of an abstract class is that you cannot call methods in them.
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
Req #53081 [Com]: why you should bring back abstract static methods
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
ID: 53081
Comment by: giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Reported by:giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
Summary:why you should bring back abstract static methods
Status: Bogus
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
but it is not allowed :(
Previous Comments:
[2010-10-16 08:43:14] ras...@php.net
Right, that is exactly how it should work.
[2010-10-16 08:36:35] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
i know, but:
abstract class cA
{
//static function A(){self::B();} error, undefined method
static function A(){static::B();} // good
abstract static function B();
}
class cB extends cA
{
static function B(){echo "ok";}
}
cB::A();
[2010-10-16 08:27:01] ras...@php.net
No, you are calling a method in an abstract class. The fundamental
characteristic
of an abstract class is that you cannot call methods in them.
[2010-10-16 08:15:46] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
hi Rasmus, what an honor!
can you please give me some example code?
you are saying that self:: points to an abstract not-implemented
method?
for example:
abstract class cA
{
static function A(){self::B();}
abstract static function B();
}
in this case can be thrown an error, but using static:: the call refers
to the called class method, not the declaring class
static function A(){static::B();}
so it can be re-enabled in this case, no?
in php static methods are really powerful unlike java's, c#'s, don't
limit them!
why interfaces allows static abstract methods? how self:: is resolved?
[2010-10-16 07:21:47] ras...@php.net
Sorry, I re-read that explanation, that didn't make sense. I meant to
say that
methods in an abstract class require that any instance of that class
implement
those methods, but static methods belong to the class, not an instance.
You can't
call methods from an abstract class, you can only call them in instances
of that
class, but static methods by definition belong to the class, but since
you can't
call methods in an abstract class you could never call these static
methods so
there is no point in them being there.
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53081&edit=1
