Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75178
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <53B46FA0.1080704@php.net>
References: <53AEC4F0.8040307@php.net>
	<53AF0F14.5030703@gmail.com>
	<53B46FA0.1080704@php.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:07:08 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NoMrsXn1uYstz6xDh1a_E-rEkhWvrCO_MOUqgZqXegZjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Bergmann <sebastian@php.net>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Revisiting Anonymous Classes
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Sebastian Bergmann <sebastian@php.net> wrote:
> Am 28.06.2014 20:53, schrieb Rowan Collins:
>> 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?
>
>  I probably missed the use case back then :) I like the syntax I
>  proposed better (including the limitation regarding extending classes
>  and implementing interfaces) which is more similar to that of other
>  languages.

You still haven't stated why you intend to restrict it to only one
implements/extends; I'd like to hear your reasoning.