Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108086 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 79258 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2020 01:51:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 10 Jan 2020 01:51:27 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8AF1804AC for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:57:11 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-yw1-f50.google.com (mail-yw1-f50.google.com [209.85.161.50]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:57:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yw1-f50.google.com with SMTP id n184so20247ywc.3 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 15:57:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=newclarity-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ayAon0wMt7plltrZa0lGPIr8bBWOLhbMgaUMeo4jZyU=; b=19Yvbxj/WJ2xKDmYNALWXGA3OupD/KaAI46MFKIGxH0HWiuK1toIc2bynGFrc3qkKU l0N2RJQjKeSMTTACMlj1ke0cR1aulkc7WJEsQct5YfPq3QjALr37++EKbNbQbv3SQ5Qb yNoJDJmsYq9JV9GFV84eohsKCz4Kr0YQUfrzvU3YGXBzGpzqzDFUNI5RPpENsH/1Ud6T KIVBseABFjDNIASVpP8sSA8T/HzEDAq7ARnOpxz4PZ7BIYpJt0bn79uj0/I4Hgwbu2jP qSww6n5JGK8/x0IMXftui71BFM6pM+TIq1ENbaTuLHoHmiRTt/hnDJ0MN3Ackhlb8VmQ E16w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ayAon0wMt7plltrZa0lGPIr8bBWOLhbMgaUMeo4jZyU=; b=bFMrXlkTzs1s//HItSNuEfyTnNTvRCGrRW87ss6qI59SWsSfwRF7rmr36q1schaLGO WzbfE9S6ZOxyx7rrbA+kaw1/GNMvvV7sxZUc4U2OCs60nn2dEdRA/MUy/P2edf8JJAFZ CXjKQwSa54UuMkmJg74PsqvruT1fAn2ox6aTqIVg7RbRoab4vS3a9ZXzpGCrj/0y23zE 3dnU9rd+AREEZyO+5UB1ogHDpknzu48MLRAmxYBVKQbVAKKiPgU+dwNMxzO8xVQNpc/L 7dxtIQF5ZdHjgQJnaI38O3YpD7b76DZ4kQahng6oWgWwDXNxyDt8m37Xbz1bfwpO0cd7 q2Pg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVOz7s9NF8HEqePliSWuJB4Or48Rwfv/kZZFiESiIr7PjiyUmps S6a5mZlN7ScoV8bsLk03mIrNlw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzClwr1spjpifgJ3/3+ztZWx2YXk360LbKM8yddhHiyT86zYVSPwNFg0WDN9hzzi+kn/iRE5A== X-Received: by 2002:a0d:c444:: with SMTP id g65mr505105ywd.119.1578614226907; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 15:57:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:c0:c680:5cc0:480:e2c0:f7b2:a682? ([2601:c0:c680:5cc0:480:e2c0:f7b2:a682]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j68sm200704ywg.6.2020.01.09.15.57.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Jan 2020 15:57:05 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 18:57:04 -0500 Cc: Internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <69403AE8-F8F6-4221-B31F-41B1E982A2C5@newclarity.net> References: <13CC52AA-7690-42C6-89B7-B8FA4166BF38@newclarity.net> <57c08851-e6e2-c0bd-76e1-f7a0388d64b4@ralphschindler.com> <60610660-2E38-47BD-A998-1E226CEB3701@newclarity.net> <032B5597-6CB6-4F5E-BDDC-8A508C3FCE93@newclarity.net> To: Marcio Almada X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow ::class on objects From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel) > On Jan 9, 2020, at 6:53 PM, Marcio Almada = wrote: >=20 > Because we would be expanding a construct that already looks > inappropriate from a purely > semantic POV with aliases that also would allow inappropriate usage > `some_function::interface`. > I'd rather have a generally unsatisfying construct than a set of > "denormalized" constructs with > equal potential for human inaccuracy. >=20 > Perhaps the problem is that `::class` was not exactly a good language > design decision in the first place or maybe > it made more sense in the past and as the language evolved it started > to appear to be named poorly. >=20 > A more _general_ construct like a `nameof` operator, as we have in C#, > could have been a brighter idea. See: Okay, I get your perspective on this now.=20 So let us add ::nameof and deprecate ::class, then? And apply it for = all symbols? :-) -Mike=