On Mon, February 18, 2008 5:08 pm, David Coallier wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 5:37 PM, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, February 18, 2008 1:27 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > <?php
>> > trait ezcReflectionReturnInfo {
>> > function getReturnType() { /*1*/ }
>> > function getReturnDescription() { /*2*/ }
>> > }
>> >
>> > class ezcReflectionMethod extends ReflectionMethod {
>> > use ezcReflectionReturnInfo;
>>
>> So it's just like an include for a re-used body of 'class' code.
>>
>> Hmmmm.
>>
>> Why not just allow 'include' here instead?
>
> Oh come on..
>
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Forgive me if I'm missing something subtle/complex here, but I
>> wonder
>> if a Trait is really the "right answer"...
>>
>> Yes, the ability to add/exclude specific functions from two Traits
>> is
>> "gone" with a simple 'include'... But so is the complexity of yet
>> another language construct...
>
> Please if you do not understand a concept, do not bash it or degrade
> it.
>
> Read the proposal, read about traits, read the thesis, read the patch,
> then if you still don't understand, give up, and if you do understand,
> you can complain.
I am not complaining.
I think it's a FINE proposal.
I'm suggesting an alternative solution which is simpler and easier to
implement, with less confusion for new users.
In fact, new users are often confused because the CAN'T do an include
in the middle of a class -- A rule which, to some, seems arbitrary and
illogical.
--
Some people have a "gift" link here.
Know what I want?
I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist.
http://cdbaby.com/from/lynch
Yeah, I get a buck. So?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
