On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> +class Base {
>> +    const DUMMY = "XXX";
>> +    public function foo($var=TEST, $more=null) { return true; }
>> +    public function bar($var, $more=self::DUMMY) { return true; }
>> +}
>> +
>> +class Child extends Base {
>> +    const DUMMY = "DDD";
>> +    public function foo($var=TEST) { return true; }
>> +    public function bar() { return true; }
>> +}
>> +?>
>> +--EXPECT--
>> +Strict Standards: Declaration of Child::foo() should be compatible with 
>> Base::foo($var = '123', $more = NULL) in %sbug63336.php on line %d
>> +
>> +Strict Standards: Declaration of Child::bar() should be compatible with 
>> Base::bar($var, $more = 'XXX') in %sbug63336.php on line %d
>
> I don't think these are good examples for E_STRICT errors. bar()
> traditionally has been used in PHP as function accepting any arguments,
> so even if current implementation of PHP (wrongly) says it's not
> compatible it may be fixed in the future. I'd rather use more obvious
> cases where the extension is clearly wrong - like adding non-optional
> arguments or types. This bug has very little to do with compatibility
> resolution, so I do not think it is good to peg it to a particular way
> of doing it.
Hey:
   so you mean, this test script should not been committed?

thanks  :)

> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
> (408)454-6900 ext. 227



-- 
Laruence  Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/

-- 
PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to