Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75171
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain nbsp.io from 209.85.213.170 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c89Zch6iFZ_vHxSiJgC1xoXOm997kz2zPJs-3kfjQniow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c-jyBCnHdYjssGV+Avsw2B=Zt8TpNUzuDsNDWabV43fQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c_w68h7FNGS0U96Fn+wv-s7j3is_Bn=W+_W2LoMA776Gw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMyk_AbtMJyhwx87oTX7y-QS7nuihL6poNsfJ4EN7jViqT+s8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c89Zch6iFZ_vHxSiJgC1xoXOm997kz2zPJs-3kfjQniow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 20:58:44 +0300
Message-ID: <CABo-uEs98aX5cMJ7xtiC8Z_jf38LXnz=qsQ_15MvAu-Ww1dyqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c20eb8ab7f3504fd39a424
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [PHP 6] Uniform Variable Syntax
From: rl@nbsp.io (Rowan Lewis)

--001a11c20eb8ab7f3504fd39a424
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

How would you create a new callable object and then invoke it? Since
'nested' () is now supported:

    new MagicInvoke()();

Could be the same as:

    (new MagicInvoke())();


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Lazare Inepologlou <linepogl@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > 2014-07-02 17:51 GMT+02:00 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi internals!
> >> >
> >> > I have created a proposal for a more consistent and complete variable
> >> > syntax for PHP 6:
> >> >
> >> >     https://wiki.php.net/rfc/uniform_variable_syntax
> >> >
> >> > The RFC is targeted at PHP 6 because it breaks compatibility for some
> >> > rarely used variable-variable constructs.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Any more feedback on this? Otherwise I'll start the vote sometime soon
> :)
> >>
> >>
> > Yes, in the RFC, you mention that this will be possible:
> >
> > ($obj->closure)()
> >
> > While this is very welcome, I was wandering if we could skip the extra
> > parenthesis, like this:
> >
> > $obj->closure()
> >
>
> We could skip the extra parenthesis, but that would require changing the
> meaning of method calls. This discussion turns up every now and then, one
> of the more recent ones being http://markmail.org/message/3zi53txadno6xrqa
> .
> A key problem was always that supporting this would break BC. However that
> BC break may be acceptable for PHP 6, so the it might be worthwhile to
> reconsider the previous decisions regarding this issue.
>
> However this is not related to variable syntax (it is a question of method
> lookup semantics), so I would suggest opening a new discussion thread for
> this (and/or write an RFC for it).
>
>
> > Likewise, this would also be nice:
> >
> > new ClassName->foo()
> >
>
> This is problematic because the following would be ambiguous:
>
>     new $className->foo()
>     // could be (_current_ behavior)
>     new ($className->foo)()
>     // or
>     (new $className)->foo()
>
> Of course we could resolve the ambiguity (towards the _latter_
> interpretation) or special-case the plain-classname case. Both options do
> not seem very appealing to me. Imho it's better to keep the explicit
> syntax.
>
> Nikita
>

--001a11c20eb8ab7f3504fd39a424--