Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69534 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 31559 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2013 11:39:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Oct 2013 11:39:14 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.4.21.210 cpc22-asfd3-2-0-cust209.1-2.cable.virginmedia.com Received: from [80.4.21.210] ([80.4.21.210:9166] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 89/2A-06817-16045525 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 07:39:13 -0400 To: internals@lists.php.net,Ferenc Kovacs Message-ID: <5255405D.4090402@php.net> Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:39:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <525283A7.50303@php.net> <83.12.24156.54982525@pb1.pair.com> <52550CB7.5040309@php.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Posted-By: 80.4.21.210 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Vote: Anonymous Classes From: krakjoe@php.net (Joe Watkins) On 10/09/2013 12:22 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Joe Watkins wrote: > >> On 10/07/2013 11:20 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote: >> >>> On 7 October 2013 11:13, Joe Watkins wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Morning Chaps, >>>> >>>> On the advice of many, I have restarted the vote, sorry for the >>>> inconvenience/confusion ... >>>> >>> >>> >>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/**anonymous_classes#voting(re-link, for the lazy) >>> >>> The voting options changed from choosing a version ("5.6", "5.7") or >>> rejecting… too a much simpler, yes/no for sticking this into master. >>> Which >>> branch/release the feature makes it into is something to be decided down >>> the line (ultimately, by the RMs). >>> >>> >>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Morning All, >> >> To anyone who has voted or will vote no; if you have voted no but >> is something that could be done to the patch to change your mind, please do >> speak up :) >> >> If you voted/will vote no and there's nothing that can change your >> mind, I'd still be interested in hearing the reasoning ... >> >> This is a pretty quiet vote ... as this is the first RFC I have >> put forward, I'd like a bit more feedback so I can avoid the avoidable in >> the future ... >> >> >> Cheers >> Joe >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> >> > I have voted no based on the lack of support for > serialization/unserialization, and I think that we agreed that without > somehow naming the class, we can't support that, and having a name would > defeat the purpose of this feature. > > I'm looking forward to nested classes though. > Tyrael, As mentioned in the RFC, there's nothing stopping you from serializing an anonymous class. Anonymous classes are named, they _have_ to be; they are named after the codepath (so file/function/class) prefixed with namespace where they are used ... so in fact there's nothing wrong with the vast majority of applications using serialization of anonymous class objects. Nested classes is more complicated than anonymous ones, if this doesn't get in on a vote I don't see nested classes getting in either; if the reason people are voting no is really that "we need to concentrate on bugs", then what is really the point in preparing another RFC before 5.6 is out in the wild ... I hear the syntax sugar thing ... but it's starting to wear a bin thin, it's a phrase thrown around without much justification or thought: Almost everything you add at the Zend level which requires some kind of syntax (so, pretty much everything) can be described as syntactic sugar. It is only a parser modification, but that should only make it more appealing, we aren't asking anything new of Zend ... In any case, I appreciate the input :) Cheers Joe