2017-01-15 12:41 GMT+01:00 Giovanni Giacobbi <giova...@giacobbi.net>:
> You are right, I feel responsible for it (but proudly), as an excuse please > consider that the three topics covered have a certain dependancy: > > Forbid __construct calls -> Forbid in constructor as well for coherency -> > need a new way to call parent's constructor > (bonus topic: implicit constructors) > > I've talked with Fleshgrinder aside and I convinced using `parent($a, $b)` as call for parent constructor fully satisfies me. Without any change to `parent::` scope resolution it's quite similar to Java's `super` which is also used as parent constructor and scope resolution. So I'm +1 for `parent` > It would be a pity if only the first part made it into the core, and I > personally like it plus I always wanted a better way to invoke parent's > constructor, so I threw it in the basket, but you are right, it is quite > off-topic. I'll check out the guide on how to submit RFCs so you guys can > fry me in another thread :P > > On 15 January 2017 at 07:06, Wes <netmo....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > you guys went slightly off topic :P > > > > > > -- > Giovanni Giacobbi > -- regards / pozdrawiam, -- Michał Brzuchalski about.me/brzuchal brzuchalski.com
