On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On 19 April 2010 14:24, Gary wrote:

> > Okay. Why not?
> Class constants must be defined with static values, not variables. They are 
> constants after all! If they relied on the value of a variable, surely that 
> would mean that their own value might change, so they would just become 
> regular variables not constants.

Right. But in fact the only referenced values are *also* constant
(unless I'm completely misunderstanding the use of 'const'), so I
think it's a valid thing to want to do. I accept it doesn't seem to be
possible, I'm now curious as to the thinking behind it.

> Is there a specific reason that you need to try and achieve this?

Okay, well here's a more meaningful situation, perhaps:
class SomeTable
  const TABLE_NAME = 'mytable';
  const SELECT = 'SELECT * FROM ' . MyTable::TABLE_NAME;
  const INSERT = 'INSERT INTO ' .  MyTable::TABLE_NAME ...

If the table name should change for some reason, it is preferable to
make the change in one place in the code (i.e. the value of
TABLE_NAME), surely, than changing the name in the alternative, which
is something like:
class SomeTable
//  const TABLE_NAME = 'mytable';
  const SELECT = 'SELECT * FROM mytable';
  const INSERT = 'INSERT INTO mytable...

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

Reply via email to