Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75126
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.200 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
In-Reply-To: <20140628140221.69C912618E2@dd15934.kasserver.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:47:55 +0100
Cc: internals@lists.php.net,
 sebastian@php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <036CE654-C909-4648-8D0F-D695DBC1D77B@ajf.me>
References: <20140628140221.69C912618E2@dd15934.kasserver.com>
To: Thomas Bley <mails@thomasbley.de>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Revisiting Anonymous Classes
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)


On 28 Jun 2014, at 15:02, Thomas Bley <mails@thomasbley.de> wrote:

> Hello Sebastian,
>=20
> for syntax consistency with anonymous functions I would prefer a =
longer Syntax:
>=20
> $greet =3D function ($name) {
>     printf("Hello %s\r\n", $name);
> };
> $greet('World');
>=20
> $log =3D class {
>  public function foo() {=85
> };
> $logObj =3D new $log();

I concur that I=92d prefer this syntax. I also think it is much more =
obvious what it does; $x =3D new {} doesn=92t make much sense unless you =
know of the feature, but $x =3D class {} isn=92t much of a leap from =
class x {}. Furthermore, I think new {} could be better used for =
something else.

Also, we could still have the class be immediately instantiated like so:

$foo =3D new class Bar {};

Or, if the parser wouldn=92t permit that:

$foo =3D new (class Bar {});

Sebastian, do you agree with this?

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/