Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69269
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <E1.50.29522.3F340425@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:36:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <D9.10.12097.032EF325@pb1.pair.com>
In-Reply-To: <D9.10.12097.032EF325@pb1.pair.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: RFC: Anonymous Classes
From: krakjoe@php.net (Joe Watkins)

On 09/23/2013 07:39 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Morning All,
>
>      https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
>
>      I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of anonymous
> classes, patch included.
>
> Cheers
> Joe

Thanks chaps ...

 >> I am having a hard time picturing a real-world use-case for this.
 >> -Rasmus

I think since you wrote that quite a few decent use cases have been 
suggested, testing, MVC (that wasn't on internals), throw away/private 
implementation of interfaces or abstracts.

It has such a wide range of uses, I didn't think it necessary to point 
them out, as others have mentioned it's an established OO pattern to use 
objects of an anonymous class.

 >> I'd rather go for a `new BaseType` syntax, though:
 >>
 >> $subject->attach(new SplObserver() {
 >>   function update(SplSubject $s) {
 >>     printf("Got update from: %s\n" $subject);
 >>   }
 >> );

Using class_name_reference in place of T_CLASS causes a conflict with 
existing syntax, which is the reason T_CLASS is accepted, additionally, 
using class is nicer shorthand for new stdClass {}.

With that in mind, I haven't tried moving the arguments, this:

    (new class {definition} (arguments))->method()

seems more natural/sensible than:

    (new class(arguments) {definition})->method()

new class() just feels a bit wrong ...

 >> Frankly, constructors are not part of any interface. Besides a
 >> constructor
 >> is totally useless in an anonymous class as it will never be called 
 >> after
 >> the object is created.

The examples in the constructor were not meant as use cases but to show 
the syntax of use.

If you are using an anonymous class to implement an interface then a 
constructor may not be required, however, removing the ability to 
declare a constructor is restrictive an unnecessary.

Cheers
Joe