Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:46836
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.227 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=I0ka6gPIrQSCparoVOFPYQbH0D/kPuJZkE+VQ4bVPjsUH5zguayKf4Dg/B4v1muU5L
         W/YcAvhNgU9UCyPYSK9ZQkxQsj5j97NBN6wNOnD8vvRwzaAblahpDBWUI3ACv70o356Z
         RGcQBub9fLKq+aqXWxgZfs0+quF0RhOGeFI90=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ded132f11001200235w17b667ddp61e810f7846b50e0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B54FC87.8070106@zend.com> <4F.56.22457.408955B4@pb1.pair.com> 
	<4B55D850.8000604@zend.com> <68de37341001190820p486b7c31o5689ab5554b8d260@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4B55E591.8060708@lerdorf.com> <ded132f11001200235w17b667ddp61e810f7846b50e0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:05:14 +0100
Message-ID: <ded132f11001200405w10bcee2at67a4da3dac42c6a0@mail.gmail.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: function call chaining
From: grobmeier@gmail.com (Christian Grobmeier)

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier
<grobmeier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why would this imply "dropping" the object?
>>>
>>> This:
>>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0$foo =3D (new bar())->someSetter();
>>> Looks a lot better than this
>>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0$foo =3D new bar();
>>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0$foo->someSetter();
>>
>> The second version is much clearer. =C2=A0You know exactly what $foo is.=
 =C2=A0In
>> the shortened version you have no idea what $foo is without reading the
>> code for the someSetter() method. =C2=A0On first glance I would assume t=
hat
>> $foo would be the success/failure return of the setter and that the
>> object is dropped.

 I also think that:
 =C2=A0$foo =3D (new bar())->someSetter();
 is assigning the return value of the setter to $foo. I would love to
 have a language feature like anonymous classes, but if $foo contains
 the bar-object after this line - wow, how would I hate this. From my
 understanding both examples should act differently.

 Rephrased: if one would say, the constructor returns itself as a
 object, you could call the someSetter() method on the returned object.
 The return value of someSetter() is then assigned.

 Having such a language feature could help with having that later:

 $a =3D new AbstractClass {
 =C2=A0 =C2=A0public function methodToOverride() {
 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 // overriding code
 =C2=A0 }
 }

 i think this already works:

 $a =3D new MyObject();
 $a->setListener( new MyListener() );

 but this could then work too

 $a =3D new MyObject();
 $a->setListener( new MyFactory()->createZipCreator() );

 As said, I would love such a syntax feature

 cheers
 Christian