Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118970
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPyj-LDUD7PZ9Bcpmsc0B_WjdnOSBPhdwfJsseB6n8PesPbzhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sL8jZGdmvL0swvDkyF9raikmUtxf9m2spgCMyabkw1uxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <504f616c-05c1-45ef-991e-2b4c79f72d07@app.fastmail.com> <CADyq6sK6ophr75YQDTpCzfh_nztum_Yhk7hskfi8z_HTJ4ha-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyq6sK6ophr75YQDTpCzfh_nztum_Yhk7hskfi8z_HTJ4ha-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2022 16:05:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+hqhpfa+Lm+hP2U+taxoDU+=KoyQA8OjsRfaCp44attCO6rgg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Dynamic class constant fetch]
From: weirdan@gmail.com (Bruce Weirdan)

On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 10:49 AM Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com> wrote:

> What's convenient about `Foo::{$bar}` vs `constant(Foo::class . '::' .
> $bar)`? I'm a bit confused by this :|

From the static analysis POV `Foo::{$bar}` is way better, as we can immediately
see that the code is trying to access a constant of a specific class,
and we can,
e.g., flag those operations that did not validate that `$bar` actually exists
as a Foo constant.