> > I don't think there was a formal agreement here on this...
>
> Well then should we come to a formal agreement?
>
> I dont think this sort of "magic" in the docs makes sense however the
> ":" could be used for methods that may be called statically and the "->"
> for methods that dont allow static calls. But again I am not sure if
> this sort of "magic" is really helpful. Either way it needs to be
> documented if the method call may be done statically.
Yes it would be nice to state this in the guidelines, so a common format
could be used in all cases. Uwe started to add this kind of OO docs first
as it seems from the logs. As far as I can see, it is clear to use:
Class::function() in case the method is designed to be
a class (static) method
Class->function() otherwise (even if the method allows static calls)
In the second case it should be noted if the function allows static calls.
It would also be nice to clean up the ID rules, so we can fix the
structure of shortcuts for future oo documentation...Currently the DOM
stuff uses "function.domdocumenttype-system-id" type of IDs which does not
seem to be a good idea for the future, since it interferes with the
"function." ID namespace which is designed for functions...
Goba
