TalkPHP - View Single Post

Wildhoney · 11-20-2007, 04:03 PM

Aside from the addition of namespaces, XSLT profiling, late static binding, mysqlnd, OpneID support, etc. I have a little bone to pick with the naming of the __callStatic magic method after reading this blog post. Does it come as any surprise to you that PHP have gone ahead and added __call in PHP 5, but have not thought about it any further than that. They've then gone to the drawing board with PHP 5.3 and realised they needed a static variation, and then just appended the word Static to the end. To me the magic method naming of __call now seems utterly ambiguous. Surely they must label the __call method now to show what __call can and cannot do.

I want to see PHP starting to improve their bad naming schemes, not carry on doing it.

Seem logical to you?

11-20-2007, 04:03 PM	#1 (permalink)
Wildhoney La Vida es Sueño Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Oldham Posts: 2,280 Thanks: 90	Bone to pick PHP 5.3 Aside from the addition of namespaces, XSLT profiling, late static binding, mysqlnd, OpneID support, etc. I have a little bone to pick with the naming of the `__callStatic` magic method after reading this blog post. Does it come as any surprise to you that PHP have gone ahead and added `__call` in PHP 5, but have not thought about it any further than that. They've then gone to the drawing board with PHP 5.3 and realised they needed a static variation, and then just appended the word Static to the end. To me the magic method naming of `__call` now seems utterly ambiguous. Surely they must label the `__call` method now to show what `__call` can and cannot do. I want to see PHP starting to improve their bad naming schemes, not carry on doing it. Seem logical to you? __________________ The man who comes back through the Door in the Wall will never be quite the same as the man who went out.