On 21/02/2008, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am not complaining. > > I think it's a FINE proposal. > > I'm suggesting an alternative solution which is simpler and easier to > implement, with less confusion for new users. > > In fact, new users are often confused because the CAN'T do an include > in the middle of a class -- A rule which, to some, seems arbitrary and > illogical.
And once they understand (if they do) why they cannot use "include", they want to know how to do it anyway. Traits answer this quite nicely. All be it in a way which the idea of include would solve if it was done at parse/compile time. So, maybe something as simple as class_include 'file.inc'; where the name has to be a constant (parse error otherwise). But having said that traits LOOK nice. They look clever. Is it over complicated? If you don't know OOP, then maybe. But hell if everything was easy we would have monkeys doing it all for us. Traits look good. Many userland developers would use them. Many more would need to learn how to use them. Let's add them! It certainly would increase the amount of code reuse which MI theoretically is supposed to do. And then lets add accessibility to class properties without magic functions. Richard. -- ----- Richard Quadling Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731 "Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!" -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
