After thinking about it, it's not really a bug. But it's definitely unintuitive.
<?php
class A
{
public function foo()
{
static::bar();
}
public function bar()
{
echo "bar()
";
}
}
$a = new A();
$a->foo();
This is valid, and calls bar(). It does not mean call bar statically. It means to look up the current class name and call function bar
if it exists, whether or not it's a static function.
To clarify a bit more: do you think parent::bar()
means to call a static function called bar()
? No, it means call whatever function is named bar()
.
Consider:
<?php
class A
{
function __call($name, $args)
{
echo "__call()
";
}
static function __callStatic($name, $ags)
{
echo "__callStatic()
";
}
function regularMethod()
{
echo "regularMethod()
";
}
static function staticMethod()
{
echo "staticMethod()
";
}
}
class B extends A
{
function foo()
{
parent::nonExistant();
static::nonExistant();
parent::regularMethod();
parent::staticMethod();
}
}
$b = new B();
$b->foo();
The parent::nonExistant()
method invokes A::__call()
, as does static::nonExistant()
. Invoking A::__callStatic()
for either call would be equally as valid! There is no way for PHP to know which one you want to be called. However, by design, PHP gives __call
the priority when invoked from this sort of context.
parent::regularMethod()
invokes the non static function regularMethod()
. (Again, the ::
operator does not mean "call this static function.") Likewise parent::staticMethod()
invokes A::staticMethod()
as one might expect.
To solve your problem:
You could manually call self::__callStatic('foo')
in the inherited class.
Or within the __call
method of class A filter against a known list and call self::__callStatic
.
function __call($f, $a)
{
if ($f == 'foo')
return self::__callStatic($f, $a);
else
{
}
}
It's ugly, but at least people who extend the class won't need to do anything special.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…