Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69382
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALJZF3jKTUDtVUTnAPGs2h2bd_V++iungV6CHeEnP9SK2eQCdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D9.10.12097.032EF325@pb1.pair.com> <alpine.DEB.2.10.1309230946590.5168@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <CAMyk_AaEZRqMwFXKhHyHn4PvxhPdCqwP1Cn8vmnoajW38ZSE5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <slrnl42thm.a07.dsp@dsp.local> <CAPMc8uaFVTUwEEWw49AgvOJxK8i-6SFdFq-RxFpbo__TRtZiWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF9U7z85iJsHppjpjUNZ3TT=Oq17_FHoXzE-Xv8BwczWXjK6cw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5241F11C.5080707@php.net> <008301ceb967$b49ab190$1dd014b0$@tutteli.ch>
 <524205D8.8000608@php.net> <CAPMc8uYwwd9s2SN4uVWRf7QuFZRxAmoeDpNsSc16funCOe13Vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5242ADAE.2080007@php.net> <CAPMc8uaNXj4TC6wDh7OZWhF60QRO-fd1JccyK8CZffcMjrLrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5242E88D.90407@php.net> <CAOWwgp=Lm_-7FTqTk9=yDO+bENRRSgGrZow6FWVb9-S0o9HdWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5244095F.3090005@php.net> <CAOWwgpnMGXy8AkrxhoemWTZwQZj2oeY6ya=4Tv19-OQz4N8XBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALJZF3jKTUDtVUTnAPGs2h2bd_V++iungV6CHeEnP9SK2eQCdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:36:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CALtuQzAxh8P7nNAobv9==utJ_Cb729vBzwJQ77R+mOBONh5DOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>
Cc: Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com>, Joe Watkins <krakjoe@php.net>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f642bdc8a25be04e75964f6
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Anonymous Classes
From: krebs.seb@gmail.com (Sebastian Krebs)

--e89a8f642bdc8a25be04e75964f6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

2013/9/27 Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>

> On 27 September 2013 09:55, Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > If you need access to the methods in AProxifier then why does the
> anonymous
> >> class extend A, you should extend AProxifier as you would with any other
> >> class.
> >>
> >
> > Because A has the behavior I want to extend?
> >
> > An other example:
> >
> > class A {...}
> > class B {...}
> >
> > class Factory
> > {
> >     protected function protectedMethod() {...}
> >
> >     function getA()
> >     {
> >         return new class extends A {.. call Factory::protectedMethod()?
> ..};
> >     }
> >
> >     function getB()
> >     {
> >         return new class extends B {.. call Factory::protectedMethod()?
> ..};
> >     }
> > }
> >
> > This is possible and welcomed with closures.
> > I see it as useful for anonymous classes than it is for anonymous
> functions.
> > What do others you think about it?
>
> -1
>
> Just because a closure is an anonymous function does not mean that an
> anonymous class has closure capabilites.
>

Just ... Isn't that something, we can simply keep out of _this_ RFC and
create separate RFC(s) for it later? Like it was done with "$this in
Closures"?


>
> --
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


-- 
github.com/KingCrunch

--e89a8f642bdc8a25be04e75964f6--