Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50601
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.83.42 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        b=FAgXgjtWqezaz5WAshBb2+OaLC5vxkbm+Aq0NZ9jIiCt15Yl+I9UZ4fNOQYqK3A4mM
         z/I/uH2IkqvzHmAj6thgnzgysRW16/XpUIBMPopDf2PwTuvZE8OShWzQT5g9LXorE8aH
         UOsReaXYq85P5VnqiQLAJc4flMb/zCeeGRbX0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin3Ka=qYW1R_L0iwESzuppWodE51QZ0gK-G4fq_@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimaAqhn8oG-zjh7VfSh6Y_=1xKUGV224MKXzKwG@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimeLX-aOARbJEOC-stjqCT_PAaMT7Dt0K+Eh0Jr@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTim8oeuNK06bV3M0npMu2XsLA311E1H82VHwYUKK@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTin3Ka=qYW1R_L0iwESzuppWodE51QZ0gK-G4fq_@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 21:52:10 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinyjm0NSVk--wosRYysXtwP_L0FFQ8rUwUB-3=9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@gmail.com>
Cc: Felipe Pena <felipensp@gmail.com>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016367658a0744d680495fae5e2
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] new foo()->bar()
From: info@tyrael.hu (Ferenc Kovacs)

--0016367658a0744d680495fae5e2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26 November 2010 21:37, Ferenc Kovacs <info@tyrael.hu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 26 November 2010 20:36, Felipe Pena <felipensp@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> > I'm here again to presents another proposal, which adds support for
> >> > instantiating a class and calling its methods and accessing its
> >> > properties
> >> > on same command.
> >> >
> >> > Example:
> >> >
> >> > <?php
> >> >
> >> > class bar {
> >> >  public $x = 'PHP';
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > class foo extends bar {
> >> >  public function bar() {
> >> >    return $this;
> >> >  }
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > var_dump(new foo()->bar()->x); // string(3) "PHP"
> >> >
> >> > ?>
> >> >
> >> > Other examples which describes the feature at
> >> > http://wiki.php.net/rfc/instance-method-call
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
> >>
> >> It seems fairly handy and I've been in situations where I wanted to do
> >> something like that - in fact, I use factories to achieve something
> >> similar.
> >>  However, the more I use it, the more it feels like introducing code
> >> smells into my code. You're essentially instantiating an object only
> >> to immediately throw it away. That means you don't actually need the
> >> object at all, you should probably be looking for static methods or
> >> class properties. Trying to avoid statics by introducing a way to
> >> instantiate and throw away objects in the same statement feels a lot
> >> like reinventing OOP while adding overhead.
> >>
> >> Anyway, just a personal observation. I generally favour the way that
> >> PHP allows you to dig your own grave (i.e. I love the freedom of the
> >> language), so as a developer I would probably favour this as well,
> >> though I find it mainly a way to introduce hacks.
> >>
> >
> > 1, I have to use a non-trivial library or "module" for a simple task, and
> I
> > don't want to write 20 line of code, and introduce 4 helper variable.
>
> If it's a one-off, then I really don't see the problem. If you're
> facing it again, write a facade.
>
> > 2. I want to get from point 1 to point 5 but I'm not interested in the
> steps
> > in-between (classical method chaining), but sadly one of the steps
> requires
> > object instantiation.
>
> If it's your code, then why are you not simplifying it? What's the
> point of writing code that you have to go through in five steps? Why
> not write a wrapper method?
>  The reasons presented sounds quite like "I want to be able write
> hacks easier" rather than "I want to fix an actual problem". I.e.
> there are solutions for this already that use OOP principles.
>
>
Sorry, I don't have the time and/or patience to fix every code out there,
which I might happen to come across in a project. :)



> That said, this fix may very well address other situations :)
>
> sure thing, I just told a(two) use-case from the top of my head.

Tyrael

--0016367658a0744d680495fae5e2--