Andi, Marcus didn't commit this patch.
BTW: I am glad with existing syntax and semantic and don't see any reason to change them. They are simular to other programming languages. Thanks. Dmitry. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 6:00 AM > To: Marcus Boerger; internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static vs. non static > > > Yes, this was by design. Via class it should be ::method() and via > object it should be ->method(). > Why do you think this is wrong? I think it actually makes a lot of > sense and don't see what we gain from allowing to call > self->method(). If there's a good reason, I'd be open to it though. > And please next time give people a chance to reply to your email, > especially on a weekend, before commiting a patch. Why do you send an > email if you don't want to hear an answer? > > Andi > > At 10:32 AM 1/22/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: > >Hello internals, > > > >right now we allow 'class::method()' like syntax but not > >'class->method() like. If noone comes up with a valid reason > why i am > >forced to call a parents method using static syntax i'll commit the > >little required change. We could even add an E_STRICT when the old > >syntax is used where not applicable. But right now i don't see that > >message as neccessary unless people want to disallow misuse > of the old > >synatx any time later. > > > > > >Best regards, > > Marcus > > > >-- > >PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
