Description:
------------
If you extend from a base class with no explict constructor defined, and the derived class has a call to parent::__construct(), an error is raised.

However it is perfectly legit to call new Dummy(), despite the fact Dummy has no explict constructor. Surely, if no constructor is defined in a base class, it should provide a default null/empty constructor to prevent errors. Without this, programmers have to provide a empty __construct method, which seems be silly as it serves no purpose other than to act as 'scaffolding code'.

I have checked in the PHP Manual under the OO bit for PHP4 and PHP5 to make sure this is not the intended behaviour for PHP. If this is not a bug and you have to provide dummy constructors, this should be made clear in the documentation.

If needed I can test this at home under Windows as well using a CVS snapshot if I get time. I'm sure it will produce the same result as it appears to be a language level issue.

Reproduce code:
---------------
<?php

class Dummy {
	// uncomment here to make me work :-)
	// function __construct() {}
}

class BillGates extends Dummy {
	function __construct() {
		parent::__construct();
	}
}

$new_idiot_to_dominate_world = new BillGates();

?>

Expected result:
----------------
Nothing should be output. $new_idiot_to_dominate_world should have an instance of BillGates.

Actual result:
--------------
Fatal error: Can not call constructor in BillGatesIsAScumBag.php on line 10