Mike,
yes i know the difference. I actually discovered that by accident when
i've forgot to write the static keyword. my code lead to an exception. i
wondered about the details of that exception and came to the solution
that the behavior as decribed exists. in my opinion one could really use
that behavior for a design pattern in order to dynamically add abilities
to objects. (e.g. implement __call interceptor and statically call the
method of another "ability provider"-class statically. it would behave
just like a native function of that object.)
Am 22.05.2011 16:47, schrieb Mike Mackintosh:
Simon,
You may want to be careful with the way you declare your class methods.
Example:
public function bar() != static function bar(), even if you use pnysudsfksdljfasdjfsd (::)
See the example below.
class Foo{
static function barStatic()
{
echo get_class($this);
}
public function barPublic()
{
echo get_class($this);
}
}
class Foobar{
public function callBarStatic()
{
Foo::barStatic();
}
public function callBarPublic()
{
Foo::barPublic();
}
}
$oo = new Foobar;
$oo->callBarStatic(); // returns only Foo
$oo->callBarPublic(); // returns Foobar
On May 22, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Simon Hilz wrote:
hi,
lets assume the following classes:
class Foo{
public function bar()
{
echo get_class($this);
}
}
class Foobar{
public function callBarStatic()
{
Foo::bar();
}
}
the following code results in the output "Foobar":
$obj = new Foobar();
$obj->callBarStatic();
That means that the static call of bar() is executed in the context of Foobar. Is this behavior deliberate? If so, it would open a great way of object composition patterns. But only if it will be retained in future versions :) (i've tested with 5.3.5)
Simon Hilz
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
