Hi Marcus, On 28/01/2008, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I checked it out in more detail and it is indeed broken as in it is not > > consistent
If possible, I'd like to revive this discussion. Patch included. :) History: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/47956/focus=47956 To summarize, we agree that there is an inconsistency related to static property inheritance, because: --> In the following case, A::$p and B::$p share the same value: class A { protected static $p; } class B extends A { public static $p; } --> Yet in the following cases, A::$p and B::$p have two separate values: class A { protected static $p; } class B extends A { protected static $p; } class A { public static $p; } class B extends A { public static $p; } You originally suggested fixing the inconsistency by changing the last 2 cases, so that A::$p and B::$p always share the same value. However, that approach raised some concerns described by myself and Jochem, for example: --> Inconsistency with overridden methods --> Inconsistency with shadowed class constants. Consequently, I'd like to propose resolving this by changing the first case, so that A::$p and B::$p always have separate values. Here's a patch that implements this. It includes relevant changes to existing tests, plus some supplementary tests to address Jochem's concern about the impact on LSB. Patch against snap php6.0-200802251530: http://pastebin.ca/919094 Disclaimer: I am not an internals expert - patch might overlook some cases, feedback welcome. :) Let me know what you think. Regards, Robin -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
