On 14 April 2015 at 17:39, Johannes Ott wrote:
> Am 14.04.2015 um 16:33 schrieb Dan Ackroyd:
>
>> Here is some feedback then:
>>
Johannes Ott wrote:
> But in the new draft (v0.4) I'm preparing at the moment I'll try to
> formulate the trigger "first call" more common by comparing it to the
> same
Am 14.04.2015 um 16:33 schrieb Dan Ackroyd:
> Here is some feedback then:
>
> From the RFC:
>> - Trigger for “magic” method call: First call to class, either first call to
>> __construct(...) or first call to any public or protected static method or
>> property of the class
>
> I don't think t
I would rather appreciate run-time class properties initialization.
Best regards,
Kubo2
2015-04-13 15:37 GMT+02:00 Johannes Ott :
> Hi,
>
> finally I managed to do my first RFC draft.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor
>
> I hope I have done everything correct so far an
Hi Johannes,
On 13 April 2015 at 13:37, Johannes Ott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> finally I managed to do my first RFC draft.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor
>
> I hope I have done everything correct so far and I'm looking forward to
> your feedback on it.
Here is some feedback then:
On Tue, 2015-04-14 at 11:49 +0200, Johannes Ott wrote:
> Am 14.04.2015 um 00:16 schrieb Levi Morrison:
> >> - IMO, the method should be called when the class is created, just after
> >> every parent class and implemented interfaces are created.
> >
> > In general I think static class data and sta
Am 14.04.2015 um 00:16 schrieb Levi Morrison:
>> - IMO, the method should be called when the class is created, just after
>> every parent class and implemented interfaces are created.
>
> In general I think static class data and static class constructors are
> a sign of poorly designed code, whic
Hi,
2015-04-13 10:37 GMT-03:00 Johannes Ott :
> Hi,
>
> finally I managed to do my first RFC draft.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor
>
> I hope I have done everything correct so far and I'm looking forward to
> your feedback on it.
>
> As I already mentioned in the prediscussi
On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 21:14 +0200, Johannes Ott wrote:
> The obvious task is to initial the state of the class before usage as I
> wrote inside my introduction of the RFC.
That is one possible task users are going to try doing. Users are more
creative.
> I think there is no "random" behavior (not
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Johannes Ott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> finally I managed to do my first RFC draft.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor
>
> I hope I have done everything correct so far and I'm looking forward to
> your feedback on it.
The static constructor cannot be call
> - IMO, the method should be called when the class is created, just after
> every parent class and implemented interfaces are created.
In general I think static class data and static class constructors are
a sign of poorly designed code, which means I am against this feature.
If it does make it
> Okay I will think about the alternative names, I somehow like
> __classInit you proposed or __classConstruct
I like simple: __init()
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Am 13.04.2015 um 18:54 schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
> On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 17:23 +0200, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>> Why am I saying it makes the language more complex? - Your proposal
>> seems to miss mentioning when exactly the method is executed. what is
>
> Ah, I missed this
>
> Trigger
On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 17:23 +0200, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> Why am I saying it makes the language more complex? - Your proposal
> seems to miss mentioning when exactly the method is executed. what is
Ah, I missed this
Trigger for “magic” method call: First call to class, either
Am 13.04.2015 um 18:02 schrieb François Laupretre:
>> De : Johannes Ott [mailto:m...@deroetzi.de]
>> finally I managed to do my first RFC draft.
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor
>>
>> I hope I have done everything correct so far and I'm looking forward to
>> your feedback on
Am 13.04.2015 um 17:29 schrieb Benjamin Eberlei:
> What would happen if you "call the parent constructor":
>
> class A extends B {
>static public function __static() {
> B::__static();
>}
> }
>
Please have a closer look to the definition of the function:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc
> De : Johannes Ott [mailto:m...@deroetzi.de]
> finally I managed to do my first RFC draft.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor
>
> I hope I have done everything correct so far and I'm looking forward to
> your feedback on it.
Interesting. It also allows to respect PSR-1, which
What would happen if you "call the parent constructor":
class A extends B {
static public function __static() {
B::__static();
}
}
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 15:37 +0200, Johannes Ott wrote:
> > finally I managed to do
Hi,
On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 15:37 +0200, Johannes Ott wrote:
> finally I managed to do my first RFC draft.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor
>
> I hope I have done everything correct so far and I'm looking forward to
> your feedback on it.
In my opinion this makes the language
Hi,
finally I managed to do my first RFC draft.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor
I hope I have done everything correct so far and I'm looking forward to
your feedback on it.
As I already mentioned in the prediscussion thread here:
For being my first change to the PHP core, I w
19 matches
Mail list logo
