On Wed, August 2, 2006 7:32 am, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I believe the problem is that 10 years ago we introduced what can be
> described as 'loose OO programming', and we're replacing it (instead
> of augmenting it) with strict OO programming.
And there are people who actually LIKE the 'loose OO programming'
paradigm.
Presumably also some who don't really care, but who have significant
bodies of code utilizing the 'looseness' who will simply refuse to
upgrade to PHP 5 -- thus exacerbating the problem of PHP 4 sticking
around for far longer than some would like.
The suggestion for adding some kind of keyword to keep both camps
happy seems reasonable, though I'm not sure I understood the details
of the suggestion...
To avoid breaking BC, it seems to me that:
E_ERROR is not issued without the extra keyword
E_STRICT, which is new anyway, is issued without the extra keyword
So, it would seem, that the extra keyword should be 'loose' and would
suppress the E_STRICT you would otherwise get.
Example:
class C {
function foo () {
}
}
class D extends C {
loose function foo ($a) {
}
}
class E extends C {
function foo ($a) {
}
}
E issues E_STRICT
D does not issue E_STRICT
At no time in a future release will E issue E_ERROR instead of
E_STRICT -- This construct will remain in E_STRICT purgatory for all
time.
Purists who run under E_STRICT get their icky code flagged.
Pragmatists who don't care can keep their same coding style.
BC is not broken.
Everybody's happy?
This *seems* like a workable solution with not too terrible a price in
development, to this naive reader.
--
Like Music?
http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
