> > I would suggest to rename the wording, to make it clear that a subclass > has to implement this method -- it's not so much about the caller. > Oh thats right, thanks for the hint, I will change this. > An alternative might be to disable E_STRICT while the function is being > compiled. > Unfortunately I have a coding guideline, telling me to use E_STRICT all over the application > However, I would probably prefer to make the constructor abstract, or to > use a dynamic method isValid(). > The constructor is doing somethings more, which I didn't write in the example, so I don't want to reimplement in each subclass. A dynamic method isValid() might be a solution but I have to think about this, because maybe the isValid should become a public static function in future for some needs. Thanks so for the new input to think about. I will have a watch on the rfc, hope it comes to a positive vote. > [1] <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reclassify_e_strict#abstract_static_methods> > -- DerOetzi -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
