Hello l0t3k,

   there is nothing new here besides that fact that now you can also have a
method with the name '__construct' in an interface. Nothing else changed.

marcus

Monday, March 6, 2006, 1:42:50 PM, you wrote:

> This should cause much fun with classes implementing multiple interfaces....


> ""Dmitry Stogov"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Well :)
>>
>> I don't say that the patch is wrong, the question itself is disputable.
>>
>> PHP doesn't allow multiple constructors, so if some class will implement
>> interface with constructor.
>> This calss (and all its subcalsses?) will not able to change constructor's
>> prototype
>>
>> Havent we mess with subclasses?
>>
>> Thanks. Dmitry.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:52 AM
>>> To: Dmitry Stogov
>>> Cc: 'Marcus Boerger'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Andi Gutmans
>>> Subject: RE: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 /
>>> zend_compile.c php-src/tests/classes
>>> ctor_in_interface_01.phpt ctor_in_interface_02.phpt
>>> ctor_in_interface_03.phpt ctor_in_interface_04.phpt
>>> interface_construct.phpt
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>>>
>>> > Is it your answer to my "break label" patch? :(
>>> >
>>> > I didn't see final PDM's decision about constructor in
>>> interfaces. And
>>> > I didn't see any discussion about this, however may be I missed it.
>>>
>>> The PDM notes say:
>>>
>>> Issue: Currently it is not possible to define a
>>> __construct() signature
>>> in an interface.
>>>
>>> Discussion: We didn't see a reason why this shouldn't
>>> be allowed, but
>>> Andi seems to have a reason for it.
>>>
>>> Conclusions:
>>>
>>>    1. Zeev asks Andi why he doesn't want constructors in the
>>>               interface.  If there is no sound reason we add this
>>>               possibility.
>>>
>>> Nothing like that happened... so I guess it's not important enough to
>>> Andi anymore? :)
>>>
>>> > The question about constructors in interfaces is not
>>> simple, and both
>>> > points of view make sense. So I would like to see your and others
>>> > arguments?
>>>
>>> At the PDM we didn't find *any* reasons why we *don't* allow it... so
>>> why not just allow it?
>>>
>>> Derick
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Derick Rethans
>>> http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
>>>
>>> 




Best regards,
 Marcus

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to