On Oct 25 0:56:28, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
> On Oct 24 15:41:44, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > >class Bar {
> > > // override getFoo() to add some specific behaviour
> > > public function getFoo() {
> > > // do the specific stuff
> > > parent::getFoo();
> > > }
> > >}
> >
> > I think you meant Bar to extend ActiveRecord? But anyway, I think
> > that this particular call should be done through __call, not
> > __callStatic, since it's basically non-static call. The line between
> > the two wasn't really well-defined in PHP (you could call static
> > methods non-statically and vice versa) which is a pity but I think
> > distinction can be made in this case.
>
> Exactly, if Bar::getFoo is not called statically, parent::getFoo() will
> not be a static call, it should not get through __callStatic.
>
> Best,
Oh, and #51176 seems bogus to me. "::" is not sufficient to indicate a
static call, neither is "self::", "static::", or "Foo::".
A call is only static if one of the two following conditions match:
1) the target method is declared as static
2) the call comes from an object-less scope
>
> >
> > --
> > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
> > (408)454-6900 ext. 227
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
>
> --
> Etienne Kneuss
> http://www.colder.ch
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
--
Etienne Kneuss
http://www.colder.ch
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
