On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 11:18, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Timm,
>
> you won't be able to tell from inside __call() whether a static or
> non static method was meant.
isset($this) does work fine.
> The same holds for __get() and __set().
> Also if we start using such code we'd need a class constructor.
Why?
> Thus this dicussion is leading to the following set of new magics:
[...]
Instead of this: How about an extra (third) parameter $context to
__call() which holds either object $this or string $classname.
The signature would then be:
mixed __call(string $name, array $args [, mixed $context]);
Checking whether __call() was statically invoked could either be
performed via code such as:
is_object($context)
? 'in context of '.get_class($context)
: 'statically in class '.$context
On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 00:26, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> In most cases method overloading is used for objects and not for classes
> (for example, initiating a SOAP object and then calling methods on it.).
> It doesn't make sense to mix these two things because it would lead to
> confusion what context the method was called in. You would either need
> another call back or pass a flag to __call() and in my opinion just doesn't
> seem to be worth it.
I think an extra flag wouldn't really hurt. No BC issue btw (mentioned in
another mail), extra parameters are always ignored. Just like the
set_error_handler() callback which you can add the array $context
parameter to.
- Timm
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
