Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:46803
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 83.243.58.133 as permitted sender)
To: Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <4F.56.22457.408955B4@pb1.pair.com>
References: <4B54FC87.8070106@zend.com>  <4F.56.22457.408955B4@pb1.pair.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Organization: php.net
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:01:26 +0100
Message-ID: <1263902486.2365.16.camel@guybrush>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: function call chaining
From: johannes@php.net (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=)

Hi,

On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 12:31 +0100, Michael Wallner wrote:
> On 01/19/2010 01:27 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > I wrote a small patch that enables this kind of syntax in PHP:
> > 
> > foo()();

I think that becomes hard to read quite easily.

> I'd rather see two other things that are missing, support for
> dynamic object and array de-referencing like
> (new class)->method() and get_array()["index"].

For the latter - there's a patch by some user in the bug tracker, which
I can't find right now.

Having $foo[0]->bar(); and $foo()[0];  it might also make sense to allow
more of these, like the proposed foo()() but other than such consistency
I don't really like it ....

johannes