Thanks for pointing that out. I confused the earlier CVS commit with
this change.
At 11:12 PM 1/22/2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
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
