Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:116420
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <05aa01d7db0e$783fa120$68bee360$@webkr.de>
In-Reply-To: <05aa01d7db0e$783fa120$68bee360$@webkr.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 18:29:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CADyq6s+wpV94O=6TGP+XVvGrSk+Uq75FMaGJigwwo_Cnf99wLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIEjDpG5zZWw=?= <andre@webkr.de>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000df751c05d0eb43c8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Is there an RFC/discussion for ::class being a specific type?
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--000000000000df751c05d0eb43c8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey Andr=C3=A9,


On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 6:22 PM Andr=C3=A9 H=C3=A4nsel <andre@webkr.de> wro=
te:

> It is common (with DI systems for example) and to my knowledge not
> particularly discouraged to have function parameters that are supposed to
> accept something like Foo::class, which currently is a string.
>
> It seems logical to ask for a special type that can hold class names, so
> that parameters that can accept a class name can be type hinted more
> specifically than just (any) "string".
>
> Regardless of whether or not such a proposal would be accepted or decline=
d
> (for complexity reasons maybe) I couldn't even find any such proposal. Ha=
s
> this really never been asked?
>


In `vimeo/psalm` and `phpstan/phpstan`, there is a pseudo-type called
`class-string`.

This `class-string` type is kinda problematic though, because `Foo::class`
does **not** autoload `Foo` (by design), and therefore a custom runtime
type would be a bit too "optimistic" about its values, as it would not
verify anything.

Greets,

Marco Pivetta

http://twitter.com/Ocramius

http://ocramius.github.com/

--000000000000df751c05d0eb43c8--