Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83673 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 5861 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2015 16:01:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Feb 2015 16:01:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ml@anderiasch.de; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ml@anderiasch.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain anderiasch.de designates 81.169.138.148 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ml@anderiasch.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 81.169.138.148 ares.art-core.org Received: from [81.169.138.148] ([81.169.138.148:33883] helo=ares.art-core.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 60/00-05669-370ACE45 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:01:56 -0500 Received: from parabellum.local (p5093a1a9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.147.161.169]) by ares.art-core.org (mail.art-core.org) with ESMTPSA id E3FBB2EE008; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:01:51 +0100 (CET) To: Philip Sturgeon references: <54EC8ABD.7040802@birkholz.biz> <54EC917B.4000309@anderiasch.de> Cc: Dennis Birkholz , "internals@lists.php.net" Message-ID: <54EC9FD1.3010009@anderiasch.de> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:59:13 +0100 user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:37.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/37.0a2 mime-version: 1.0 in-reply-to: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Anonymous Classes From: ml@anderiasch.de (Florian Anderiasch) On 02/24/2015 04:31 PM, Philip Sturgeon wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Florian Anderiasch wrote: >> On 02/24/2015 03:29 PM, Dennis Birkholz wrote: >>> Am 24.02.2015 um 14:52 schrieb Philip Sturgeon: >>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes >>> >>> I like the idea of having anonymous classes, it is very helpful during >>> development to just try something out without having the burden of >>> creating a new file and a complete class including namespace and use >>> declarations, etc. >> >> I don't buy this argument. If your class loader or PSR prevents you from >> temporarily adding a 2nd bogus class to the same file (not talking about >> best practices here, obviously) then there's the culprit and it's >> nothing the language needs to fix. >> > > Your reply seems to assume that avoiding rules in a PSR is the only > benefit of the RFC, which is weird when there is a whole RFC full of > benefits of this RFC. My reply was simply re: the quoted paragraph in the mail I directly replied to, not yours. I simply think "trying something out" is not a valid use case of anonymous classes. I can generally like the RFC and still refute arguments in favor of it, right? :) ~Florian