Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83677
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54EC9FD1.3010009@anderiasch.de>
References: <CABDNdAE+7J3ViNR8844kBQsYzLDsWP-YAkKSQhD8v5GFL1Ky-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<54EC8ABD.7040802@birkholz.biz>
	<54EC917B.4000309@anderiasch.de>
	<CABDNdAG88hNqvOCwNY_X+Ccj34oJpg7iNP=SYSSBcVbP79Mr0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<54EC9FD1.3010009@anderiasch.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:44:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CABDNdAFFPTZeXMO1cV=uTiVnL0WE6yw0SASu2=x7zFDO+=9H3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Florian Anderiasch <ml@anderiasch.de>
Cc: Dennis Birkholz <dennis@birkholz.biz>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Anonymous Classes
From: pjsturgeon@gmail.com (Philip Sturgeon)

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Florian Anderiasch <ml@anderiasch.de> wrote:
> On 02/24/2015 04:31 PM, Philip Sturgeon wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Florian Anderiasch <ml@anderiasch.de> 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


I gotcha.

Again though, Dennis wasn't saying "trying something out" is the only
benefit, just the one. We can take that argument and shove it under
the rug for sure, but it's perfectly reasonable for me as one of many
arguments for it.