Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:126774
Feedback-ID: ifab94697:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 01:01:26 +0100
To: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <d57e7a02-8678-415d-9f9c-b61bf8524b7a@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <70f34dcf-e4b6-4d92-8417-83ebeb03153c@rwec.co.uk>
References: <aae32397-0567-417f-adbe-6b663d5c49ae@app.fastmail.com>
 <70f34dcf-e4b6-4d92-8417-83ebeb03153c@rwec.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: short and inner classes
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary=d50916ec603d4ca3a411b680eb5d8397
From: rob@bottled.codes ("Rob Landers")

--d50916ec603d4ca3a411b680eb5d8397
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sat, Mar 15, 2025, at 00:21, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
> On 05/03/2025 23:11, Rob Landers wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to introduce my RFC for discussion:=20
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-and-inner-classes
>=20
>=20
> As a user, I find the concept of inner classes quite confusing.
>=20
> However, I was looking at some code earlier and thought an "inner enum=
"=20
> would be useful, to replace various "MODE_FOO" type class constants -=20
> but I see those are left to future scope. :(

Actually, it appears I did not limit it in the implementation... So, may=
be we could play with it and see what breaks. I simply left traits, enum=
s, and interfaces to future scope because 1) I didn't have a working imp=
lementation yet, 2) had no idea what would break and 3) every time someo=
ne suggests a change to enums, the discussion explodes.

Having inner enums, traits, and interfaces is actually quite simple. Mig=
ht as well see how simple. :) But fwiw, I do plan on a near immediate RF=
C(s) for these if this thing passes, as well as short classes -- I also =
have a semi-finished draft with short enums as well, but that one is act=
ually physically impossible without making 'enum' a true reserved word. =
The "hack" (if you will) to bypass that requirement is still in place an=
d makes the grammar (likely) impossible.

I will have to fix this tomorrow, because I am not a fan of having inner=
 classes on interfaces, at least. I will play with it on enums and trait=
s and see what breaks. I suspect inner classes on traits will cause utte=
r chaos.

> I'm aware they exist in a lot of other languages, though, so I thought=20
> I'd look around at how the proposed version compares. It seems there's=20
> quite a zoo out there...
>=20
> One common theme I do note is that all four of the pages I found are=20
> titled "nested classes" or "nested types"; in some cases, "inner=20
> class"/"inner type" has a specific meaning, which I don't think matche=
s=20
> the RFC's proposal.

I actually borrowed heavily from C#. I'm familiar with its usage and rul=
es, and it fits nicely with PHP paradigms.

=E2=80=94 Rob
--d50916ec603d4ca3a411b680eb5d8397
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 Sat, Mar 15, 2025, at 00:21, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wro=
te:<br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite" id=3D"qt" style=3D""><div>On 05/0=
3/2025 23:11, Rob Landers wrote:<br></div><div>&gt;<br></div><div>&gt; I=
'd like to introduce my RFC for discussion:&nbsp;<br></div><div>&gt;&nbs=
p;<a href=3D"https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-and-inner-classes">https://w=
iki.php.net/rfc/short-and-inner-classes</a><br></div><div><br></div><div=
><br></div><div>As a user, I find the concept of inner classes quite con=
fusing.<br></div><div><br></div><div>However, I was looking at some code=
 earlier and thought an "inner enum"&nbsp;<br></div><div>would be useful=
, to replace various "MODE_FOO" type class constants -&nbsp;<br></div><d=
iv>but I see those are left to future scope. :(<br></div></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div><div>Actually, it appears I did not limit it in the impleme=
ntation... So, maybe we could play with it and see what breaks. I simply=
 left traits, enums, and interfaces to future scope because 1) I didn't =
have a working implementation yet, 2) had no idea what would break and 3=
) every time someone suggests a change to enums, the discussion explodes=
.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Having inner enums, traits, and interface=
s is actually quite simple. Might as well see how simple. :) But fwiw, I=
 do plan on a near immediate RFC(s) for these if this thing passes, as w=
ell as short classes -- I also have a semi-finished draft with short enu=
ms as well, but that one is actually physically impossible without makin=
g 'enum' a true reserved word. The "hack" (if you will) to bypass that r=
equirement is still in place and makes the grammar (likely) impossible.<=
br></div><div><br></div><div>I will have to fix this tomorrow, because I=
 am not a fan of having inner classes on interfaces, at least. I will pl=
ay with it on enums and traits and see what breaks. I suspect inner clas=
ses on traits will cause utter chaos.</div><div><br></div><blockquote ty=
pe=3D"cite" id=3D"qt" style=3D""><div>I'm aware they exist in a lot of o=
ther languages, though, so I thought&nbsp;<br></div><div>I'd look around=
 at how the proposed version compares. It seems there's&nbsp;<br></div><=
div>quite a zoo out there...<br></div><div><br></div><div>One common the=
me I do note is that all four of the pages I found are&nbsp;<br></div><d=
iv>titled "nested classes" or "nested types"; in some cases, "inner&nbsp=
;<br></div><div>class"/"inner type" has a specific meaning, which I don'=
t think matches&nbsp;<br></div><div>the RFC's proposal.<br></div></block=
quote><div><br></div><div>I actually borrowed heavily from C#. I'm famil=
iar with its usage and rules, and it fits nicely with PHP paradigms.<br>=
</div><div><br></div><div id=3D"sig121229152">=E2=80=94 Rob<br></div></b=
ody></html>
--d50916ec603d4ca3a411b680eb5d8397--