On 20.02.2008, at 21:43, Stefan Marr wrote:
If we feel it gets necessary we probbaly
might want to support a syntax like:
'trait_method' => false
'trait_method' => 'new_name'
'trait_method' => array('new_name', 'trait_method'
I'm not comfortable with this notation, since it strengthens the
impression that it is renaming.
In my eyes it looks like this:
"trait_method => false" means trait_method is moved to false, it is
deleted, but this leads to the wrong impression of this:
"trait_method => new_name" means trait_method is moved to new_name,
and I am absolutely against this notion.
Renaming implies in my opinion all references to this method might be
adjusted (what is not possible at all) and the original method is
"lost".
There are several problems with with "lost" method already discussed
on this list, like not fulfilled requirements (the delete method
thing).
The aliasing notion has the benefit that a method has to be explicitly
excluded to be removed. So the developer explicitly requests for a
change that he will handle on its own.
I agree that its important to make this concept clear in the syntax
and that Marcus's proposal does not make it sufficiently clear.
I do like Lars' proposal however:
I have another syntax proposal:
class Foo {
consume TFoo {
methodName as newMethodName;
ignore otherMethod;
}
}
maybe "as" should even be expanded to "alias"
though the following does look like the english grammar police will
get us:
methodName alias newMethodName;
regards,
Lukas
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
