Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108083
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
In-Reply-To: <CAJW__o2ofY0Rr3j+Rc67JYvWCt800BGH+OPNg1H_zJEPGLXt8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:56:50 -0500
Cc: Ralph Schindler <ralph@ralphschindler.com>,
 Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <64EF5D53-AEEE-40F7-BD07-02BAE245C9A7@newclarity.net>
References: <CAF+90c_PXAa8PSBzULa0WHViQ-XvuX+BuYQfx6c1zOf-9pOA=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <13CC52AA-7690-42C6-89B7-B8FA4166BF38@newclarity.net>
 <57c08851-e6e2-c0bd-76e1-f7a0388d64b4@ralphschindler.com>
 <60610660-2E38-47BD-A998-1E226CEB3701@newclarity.net>
 <CAJW__o0HrU8pxduHEj7-FrVehewfKj=+LToPOJ9JHM0T6VpOkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <032B5597-6CB6-4F5E-BDDC-8A508C3FCE93@newclarity.net>
 <CAJW__o2ofY0Rr3j+Rc67JYvWCt800BGH+OPNg1H_zJEPGLXt8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kalle Sommer Nielsen <kalle@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow ::class on objects
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

> On Jan 9, 2020, at 5:30 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen <kalle@php.net> =
wrote:
>=20
> I cannot see any benefits to adding the ::trait syntax (nor the =
::interface) one
> besides some OCD issue that you are using ::class on an instance or =
name
> of something that technically is not a class, like in your below
> example, even less when ::class already is working.

The benefit is _clarity_ for when reading code. Is wanting clarity =
considered OCD?

>> Traits are symbols, so it is not unreasonable that there would be a =
way to access it symbolically so that the reference can be type checked.
>=20
> That is where you are wrong, traits are not contracts, so therefore
> they are not types.

That is a distinction without a difference. =20

And I did not say I wanted to check it for a contract. I simply wanted =
to reference it.

> They are a useless symbol to refer to in the context of ::class.=20

I said I wanted to refer to it when composing error message, as one =
example. That is not useless.

Why is it so important to push back on this?  What harm does having it =
cause when clarity is the benefit?

> but in your example you are still referring to the trait as it was a =
type

How am I referring to the trait as a type? I simply referenced it in an =
error message.

> That is fine if the instanceof operator does not do it for you, but
> you could have left that last part of the comment out of the mail,
> after all, it was just a tip.

I am frustrated by people constantly telling me how they think I should =
code when I ask for features, that people assume because they cannot =
envision it that a feature is problematic, and I was annoyed you assumed =
that as someone on this list I would need that tip. =20

But you are right. I apologize.

-Mike