Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:126741
Feedback-ID: ifab94697:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 21:46:49 +0100
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <b10ba5b6-8427-4efd-b183-7902b349673f@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0d94bf183543ee9948fcd31337198438@bastelstu.be>
References: <aae32397-0567-417f-adbe-6b663d5c49ae@app.fastmail.com>
 <2935d0e2-ddc4-447c-ab37-c9b7337b8b60@app.fastmail.com>
 <0d94bf183543ee9948fcd31337198438@bastelstu.be>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: short and inner classes
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary=b4ee89afd31a41e4be05d241b9fd0df0
From: rob@bottled.codes ("Rob Landers")

--b4ee89afd31a41e4be05d241b9fd0df0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Thu, Mar 13, 2025, at 12:01, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>=20
> Am 2025-03-12 11:10, schrieb Rob Landers:
> > - Accessing inner classes is done via a new token: ":>" instead of=20
> > "::".
>=20
> I don't particularly like that. It is =E2=80=9Cinvented syntax=E2=80=9D=
 and I don't=20
> think that inner classes are sufficiently valuable to dedicate an enti=
re=20
> operator to them that could serve a more useful purpose in the future.=20
> It also got 4 negative points in the rating back when the namespace=20
> separator was decided: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceseparator
>=20
> Would `\\` (i.e. two backslashes) work? The outer class for inner=20
> classes effectively act as a namespace, so it makes sense to me to use=20
> syntax that is similar to namespaces.
>=20
> I'll look into the rest when there is a new implementation, since I=20
> assume some details will still be clarified and fixed as part of=20
> implementing the proposal.
>=20
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus
>=20

I am not particularly attached to the separator. I specifically chose it=
 due to being a mixture of :: and -> and -: seemed like a bad idea. In o=
ther words, an inner class felt natural to use :> -- however, I have som=
e issues with it myself. Particularly, it is too much like |> and as sho=
wn in the namespace RFC, way too easy to typo. Personally, after using i=
t for a few days, I'd almost rather go back to :: ...

I will give \\ a try, but it has to be typed quite a bit when referencin=
g inner classes, so keeping it easy to type is a must. I feel like \\ re=
quires a large movement to type, at least on a qwerty non-english keyboa=
rd. Maybe people using other keyboards can chime in.

> I don't think that inner classes are sufficiently valuable

I'm curious why some people feel this way and why some other people are =
saying the opposite (emphatically). I'll nudge the private emails I've r=
eceived to speak up publicly on the list as well. But, why do you feel t=
his way?

=E2=80=94 Rob
--b4ee89afd31a41e4be05d241b9fd0df0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type=3D"text/css">p.Mso=
Normal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div><br></div><div>=
<br></div><div>On Thu, Mar 13, 2025, at 12:01, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:=
<br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite" id=3D"qt" style=3D""><div>Hi<br></di=
v><div><br></div><div>Am 2025-03-12 11:10, schrieb Rob Landers:<br></div=
><div>&gt; - Accessing inner classes is done via a new token: ":&gt;" in=
stead of&nbsp;<br></div><div>&gt; "::".<br></div><div><br></div><div>I d=
on't particularly like that. It is =E2=80=9Cinvented syntax=E2=80=9D and=
 I don't&nbsp;<br></div><div>think that inner classes are sufficiently v=
aluable to dedicate an entire&nbsp;<br></div><div>operator to them that =
could serve a more useful purpose in the future.&nbsp;<br></div><div>It =
also got 4 negative points in the rating back when the namespace&nbsp;<b=
r></div><div>separator was decided:&nbsp;<a href=3D"https://wiki.php.net=
/rfc/namespaceseparator">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceseparator</a>=
<br></div><div><br></div><div>Would `\\` (i.e. two backslashes) work? Th=
e outer class for inner&nbsp;<br></div><div>classes effectively act as a=
 namespace, so it makes sense to me to use&nbsp;<br></div><div>syntax th=
at is similar to namespaces.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I'll look into=
 the rest when there is a new implementation, since I&nbsp;<br></div><di=
v>assume some details will still be clarified and fixed as part of&nbsp;=
<br></div><div>implementing the proposal.<br></div><div><br></div><div>B=
est regards<br></div><div>Tim D=C3=BCsterhus<br></div><div><br></div></b=
lockquote><div><br></div><div>I am not particularly attached to the sepa=
rator. I specifically chose it due to being a mixture of :: and -&gt; an=
d -: seemed like a bad idea. In other words, an inner class felt natural=
 to use :&gt; -- however, I have some issues with it myself. Particularl=
y, it is too much like |&gt; and as shown in the namespace RFC, way too =
easy to typo. Personally, after using it for a few days, I'd almost rath=
er go back to :: ...<br></div><div><br></div><div>I will give \\ a try, =
but it has to be typed quite a bit when referencing inner classes, so ke=
eping it easy to type is a must. I feel like \\ requires a large movemen=
t to type, at least on a qwerty non-english keyboard. Maybe people using=
 other keyboards can chime in.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type=3D=
"cite" id=3D"qt" style=3D""><div>I don't&nbsp;think that inner classes a=
re sufficiently valuable<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm c=
urious why some people feel this way and why some other people are sayin=
g the opposite (emphatically). I'll nudge the private emails I've receiv=
ed to speak up publicly on the list as well. But, why do you feel this w=
ay?</div><div><br></div><div id=3D"sig121229152">=E2=80=94 Rob<br></div>=
</body></html>
--b4ee89afd31a41e4be05d241b9fd0df0--