Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75127
Return-Path: <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 76253 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2014 18:53:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jun 2014 18:53:14 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rowan.collins@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rowan.collins@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rowan.collins@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.212.175 mail-wi0-f175.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.212.175] ([209.85.212.175:38616] helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id FB/D0-04906-91F0FA35 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:53:14 -0400
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id r20so4254507wiv.8
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=FdTq7Qt4EAVdoC5x91NofSfYzgdXZ5G2dDIVV8cPQSo=;
        b=p2OcDcWHVdbplgm9uX1rxhA7zC1eQtYm7PFmzEknnmMaVM99R2MOMtslR7YEX/cK3/
         f92tNgfCEeZe4szMSkTx3H5WJbes8RrPIXdvNWy/zcSRA0xzUy0pfnn4A3BMxeT4zNqt
         YH2Yu1GFCNGSauvt31B5uLZaZeeA0xkVQl+709eyklq3S3p4QlVh46rvp1ZIO5RkARhW
         IijHyBqHtzrVF5ltUjxsZX1P6YT2jyf8LaIRCBaH5irmsWXebcnCuanQAgFNQ5iiZjvZ
         kfwY1+ra9ZXYOtekiSNapOL9mUnMIR4Zrz0cDe8lJmH7xqn4L6z1lltC/vxJ1xAyzLKl
         WGIg==
X-Received: by 10.180.75.197 with SMTP id e5mr19538246wiw.76.1403981590447;
        Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (cpc19-brig17-2-0-cust25.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [81.101.201.26])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kr6sm29556825wjb.16.2014.06.28.11.53.09
        for <internals@lists.php.net>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53AF0F14.5030703@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:53:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <53AEC4F0.8040307@php.net>
In-Reply-To: <53AEC4F0.8040307@php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Revisiting Anonymous Classes
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

On 28/06/2014 14:36, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>   I was surprised to find [2] (and even more so because I voted "No"
>   on it ... and had no recollection of reading the RFC or voting
>   on it). Most likely I did not see a use case for anonymous classes
>   back then.
>
>   I would like to propose the following syntax for declaring an
>   anonymous class ...


Apart from a possibly new use case (although the wiki page does list "it 
would also definitely be very useful for mocking in tests" among the 
"Use Cases from the Community"), how is this proposal different from the 
one which was rejected less than a year ago?

Not that I particularly oppose it, but is there any reason to think that 
this will pass now when it didn't then? For that matter, has there ever 
been discussion of a "statute on limitations" (time of other conditions 
for reopening discussion) for re-proposing previously rejected features?

Regards,

-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]