Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55554&edit=1
ID: 55554
User updated by: ryan at zuttonet dot com
Reported by: ryan at zuttonet dot com
Summary: Trait methods overriding legacy constructors
Status: Assigned
Type: Bug
Package: Scripting Engine problem
Operating System: Ubuntu
PHP Version: 5.4.0alpha3
Assigned To: gron
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
Thanks, Stefan (the defect directions explicitly say not to include examples
over 20 lines; that's why I provided the github link)
The real issue is this: should we be allowed to define, in a trait, a method
that will override the constructor of the class into which we're importing the
trait?
I think not, but currently it can be done, although not consistently.
Example 1:
<?php
/**
* ============
* Defect: can alias-override class constructor, but only when using legacy
constructor naming convention
* ============
*/
trait SomeTrait {
private function constructor() {
echo "this is abuse\n";
}
}
class SomeClass {
use SomeTrait {
constructor as __construct;
}
public function SomeClass() {
echo "this is a constructor";
}
}
$c = new SomeClass(); // Fatal error: Call to private SomeClass::__construct()
In this example, I can override SomeClass::SomeClass() as the constructor by
importing SomeTrait::constructor() as SomeClass::__construct(). However, this
works only because I'm using the legacy constructor SomeClass::SomeClass(). If
I
had defined SomeClass::__construct() in SomeClass' definition, PHP would not
allow this trait abuse.
Example 2:
<?php
/**
* ============
* Defect: can override class constructor, but only when using legacy
constructor naming convention
* ============
*/
trait SomeTrait {
private function __construct() {
echo "this is abuse\n";
}
}
class SomeClass {
use SomeTrait;
public function SomeClass() {
echo "this is a constructor";
}
}
$c = new SomeClass(); // Fatal error: Call to private SomeClass::__construct()
In this case, I can override the legacy constructor SomeClass::SomeClass() with
a method name SomeTrait::__construct(). However, if I had a method named
SomeClass::__construct(), it would not be overridden by the trait method.
Do my concerns make more sense now? It's not about what _should_ be allowed,
it's about the inconsistency in what currently is allowed.
In order to be consistent, either both types of constructors should be
overridable, or neither should (probably the latter).
Again, it's about the overriding of an existing constructor, not about the
mixing in of one into a class with no constructor.
Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2011-09-12 10:47:22] g...@php.net
Hi Ryan:
I am sorry, I don't think I understand what inconsistency you are pointing out.
Could you elaborate on the problem?
(And please include the code you are referring to directly here. Just to make
it
easier for me
to know that we are talking about exactly the same code.)
What I understand is you want to provide the constructor with a trait, right?
Like this:
<?php
trait MyTrait {
public function constructor() {
echo "Foo\n";
}
}
class MyClass {
use MyTrait {
constructor as __construct;
}
}
class MyClass2 {
use MyTrait {
constructor as MyClass2;
}
}
echo "MyClass constructor: ";
$o = new MyClass; // echos Foo
echo "\nMyClass2 constructor: ";
$o = new MyClass2; // doesn't echo Foo
echo "\n";
?>
The problem I see here is that for MyClass2 the constructor does not actually
get registered
as a constructor but just as a normal method.
That seems to be an inconsistency that needs to be fixed.
Ok, now to the new vs. legacy constructors:
class Bar {
function Bar() {
echo "BarBar new ctor\n";
}
function __construct() {
echo "Bar new ctor\n";
}
}
$o = new Bar;
?>
Switching the order of the definition of the constructors doesn't influence the
result,
__construct always wins.
Both your examples behaves identical to the situation if the __construct would
have been
defined directly in the class. So, where is the problem here?
It is not an inconsistency with how PHP behaves without traits, from what I can
see.
Ah, and please try the latest code in the SVN, I am not exactly sure whether I
changed
anything that could be related to that between alpha3 and now. But I doubt it.
Thanks
Stefan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2011-08-31 15:52:43] ryan at zuttonet dot com
Apologies; the literal expected output for the provided test scripts should be:
"this is a constructor"
As this is the output when using __construct() in the class definition instead
of
a legacy-style constructor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2011-08-31 15:49:30] ryan at zuttonet dot com
Description:
------------
For the sake of consistency, exactly one of the following should be implemented:
1. Trait methods should be able to override __construct definitions
2. Trait methods should not be able to override legacy constructor definitions
Currently, trait methods are not able to override __construct
definitions. Trait methods are able to override legacy constructor definitions.
Test script:
---------------
Here are two test cases that will reproduce the defect:
https://gist.github.com/1183844
Expected result:
----------------
A trait-level __construct method (or a trait-level method aliased as
__construct)
should not be able to override any type of constructor in a class
Actual result:
--------------
Fatal error: Call to private SomeClass::__construct() from invalid context
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55554&edit=1
