Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84483
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAN=kQJe2cz5n2k5C-Osz=2-0iMnrjpwLgqdPzAkVtD29R65DNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDNdAE+7J3ViNR8844kBQsYzLDsWP-YAkKSQhD8v5GFL1Ky-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<010801d055d3$ed5a8fa0$c80faee0$@tutteli.ch>
	<CABDNdAFBt_ep2WBdm97_wvJV-VEVvccmf-VBCq33Dk3752c+bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<004d01d05696$9d797410$d86c5c30$@tutteli.ch>
	<CABDNdAGArPbE2NYe8Z03GQ9+t6UQQigKoJgjoBA6h_+2ffzXGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54FA3B69.1050709@gmail.com>
	<CABDNdAGHEceohSPO5cjF+p2-pfnkBCbCNTUQsekcjqFRWbY5bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN=kQJe2cz5n2k5C-Osz=2-0iMnrjpwLgqdPzAkVtD29R65DNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:22:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CABDNdAF6TRJXiUgbM6FmEso6GNdZ8dcHiY35H7LND-p5j3pB-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Leverton <leverton@gmail.com>, "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)

Matthew,

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Matthew Leverton <leverton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> $foo = class extends Callback { ... }
>>> $bar = new $foo;
>>
>> Nope, none of that. Wrap that in a function or clone it perhaps.
>>
> Are you actively against that functionality? (I don't think it's very
> useful, but was wondering if you think it's a bad idea for some
> reason.)
>
> I'm not sure what people think it should return. The name of the
> anonymous class??
>
> e.g., similar to:
>
> class Foo { }
> $foo = 'Foo';
> $fooInstance = new $foo;
>
> That seems odd to me. It could just return a ReflectionClass object:
>
> $reflector = class { public function bar() { } };
> $foo = $reflector->newInstance();
> $foo->bar();
>
> But I don't know if that would feel out of place. Otherwise, it seems
> like it would need to return some sort of "Class" object that could be
> typecasted, etc ... but in some ways that's what a ReflectionClass
> already is.
>
> Just throwing that out there.
>
> Big +1 on the RFC as presented.
>
> --
> Matthew Leverton


Thanks for the example! I would say: Yes, I am actively against that stuff.

Firstly, at this time no part of PHP that I know of will smash a
reflection object at you unless you specifically interact with the
reflection API and ask for it. That in itself is a major nope.

Secondly, it am unsure of the uses. you can wrap that in a function or
shove it in a named class if you need to create multiple instances of
it. Or, as I said, there is clone.

If usage of this simple feature starts to show that people feel
constrained by not having this extra feature, then I would say we
should add that later. I am a big fan of keeping it simple and
introducing things as people need them, instead of trying to cover all
future use cases. :)