At 01:48 AM 3/10/2001 +0100, André Langhorst wrote:
>>I still don't understand what the problem is? What should be documented 
>>is the right way to use these calls.
>problem 1 : how do I call the "::" operator and how do I call what it does 
>if it is no static call.

It does:
a) Calls an ancestor's method which can rely on $this
b) Another classes method (unrelated) which shouldn't rely on $this

>problem 2 : the "bug" with incorrect $this I mentioned, it is at least 
>unexcpected and should be documented (that you can't rely on $this using 
>"::" ) but since no one likes undefined behaviour it would be fine to see 
>it fixed - my opinion is that using "::" $this should never be set to 

Every language implementation including C/C++ has undefined/unexpected 
behavior when you use constructs in ways they aren't meant/documented for. 
There is nothing to fix here like there's nothing to fix in gcc. It happens 
that $this is meant to propogate with a :: call because it is meant to work 
in case 1) above.

>>PEAR relies on the $this being correct even when you call a method which 
>>is not in the current class or in one of its parent classes?
>no, it simply uses "::" that is an undocumented feature

:: should be documented in the way I mentioned above.

>>Where can I see the documentation? (Any chance you can send it here to 
>>save me the time? :).
>>We just need to be sure we don't document things which aren't necessarily 
>>supposed to work.

I'll try and read through this tomorrow.


PHP Development Mailing List <>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to