Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- rfc:prototype_checks [2011/09/19 11:51] – [Mismatch but theoretically compatible] colder
+++ rfc:prototype_checks [2014/04/08 22:52] – Inactive levim
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== Request for Comments: How to write RFCs ======
+====== Request for Comments: Prototype checks ======
   * Version: 1.0
   * Date: 2011-09-19
   * Author: Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net>
-  * Status: Under Discussion
+  * Status: Inactive
   * First Published at: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/prototype_checks
@@ Line 142: / Line 142: @@
 Constructors can be seen as pseudo-static methods, for this reason, the same checks for normal methods do not always apply for constructors.
-It is however unclear whether we really want, for constructors, to be more strict if they are defined via an abstract class. So:
+It is however unclear whether we really want, for constructors, to be more strict (and how strict) if they are defined via an abstract class. So:
-  - Do we really want that check to be performed on 5.4 for constructors in abstract methods
+  - Do we really want that check to be performed on 5.4 for constructors coming from abstract methods
   - Do we really want the mismatch to result in a FATAL error (potential BC break coming from 5.3 where no checks were done)
+==== Similar prototypes from different interfaces ====
+It would be better to allow multiple interfaces to define the same intersection of prototype. It is currently not allowed in any case.
+For example:
+  interface A {
+    function apply($a, $b);
+    // ...
+  }
+  interface B {
+     function apply($a, $b);
+     // ...
+  }
+  class C implements A, B { .. }
+This is currently not allowed, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be.

Differences

Page Tools