Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:126729
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 12:01:42 +0100
To: Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: short and inner classes
In-Reply-To: <2935d0e2-ddc4-447c-ab37-c9b7337b8b60@app.fastmail.com>
References: <aae32397-0567-417f-adbe-6b663d5c49ae@app.fastmail.com>
 <2935d0e2-ddc4-447c-ab37-c9b7337b8b60@app.fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <0d94bf183543ee9948fcd31337198438@bastelstu.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi

Am 2025-03-12 11:10, schrieb Rob Landers:
> - Accessing inner classes is done via a new token: ":>" instead of 
> "::".

I don't particularly like that. It is “invented syntax” and I don't 
think that inner classes are sufficiently valuable to dedicate an entire 
operator to them that could serve a more useful purpose in the future. 
It also got 4 negative points in the rating back when the namespace 
separator was decided: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceseparator

Would `\\` (i.e. two backslashes) work? The outer class for inner 
classes effectively act as a namespace, so it makes sense to me to use 
syntax that is similar to namespaces.

I'll look into the rest when there is a new implementation, since I 
assume some details will still be clarified and fixed as part of 
implementing the proposal.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus