Hello, On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 14:21 -0500, Jeff Moore wrote: > On Mar 2, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Mike Lively wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > In regards to naming: 'static' wasn't my first choice either. In fact I > > was originally using 'this::' due to me misreading the notes from the > > PDM. > > Does 'this' work ok? I like that one. this:: and $this would both be > late binding one for the class the other for the instance. It makes a > lot of sense to me. I think it explains why self isn't late binding, > too. very nice. > > this::method() > this::$property > this::constant > get_this_class() >
My personal preference is this::. As it does help make things clear. Chances of someone having a class named 'this' is pretty unlikely. The decision just has to be made of whether or not we want to punish people using 'this' as a class name. Like I said before 'static::' is the only label that I know of that will have no BC issues. On a somewhat related note. What should the behavior be if static:: (or this::) is used in a non-static function? The current behavior is that inside of a non-static function self:: == static::. Is this acceptable? Or should it's usage be discouraged or should be disallowed? > > (I doubt very strongly that anyone 'relies' on early > > binding for static functions...I could be wrong though.) > > But they do for static properties. Changing the meaning of > self::$property would probably break some stuff. > Maybe, it's hard to know how people are using it for sure. Which is why I think it's a bad idea to change the meaning of self::. ds- -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
