Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84535
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABDNdAE+7J3ViNR8844kBQsYzLDsWP-YAkKSQhD8v5GFL1Ky-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDNdAE+7J3ViNR8844kBQsYzLDsWP-YAkKSQhD8v5GFL1Ky-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:34:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHZ_-MBTYoYkYdzHOS2PHp0vVoz5uO5bTGMKgUf3zsXtS8aXPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Sturgeon <pjsturgeon@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eca66935ab5051100d19b
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Anonymous Classes
From: leedavis81@gmail.com (Lee Davis)

--001a113eca66935ab5051100d19b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Phil.

    I really like this feature and am keen to see it go in. Developers
often create classes (which are typically new files) just to extend and
implement a small method. This feature could see codebases become much
lighter. So a massive thanks for your and Joe=E2=80=99s efforts on this.

I have two quite small points I want to make.

Firstly,

When a error occurs on an anonymous class the class description isn=E2=80=
=99t very
useful (see http://3v4l.org/9Nbea/rfc#tabs). Instead of
=E2=80=9Cclass@0x7f9e33870fd0=E2=80=9D Is it possible it could be prefixed =
with =E2=80=9Canonymous=E2=80=9D
or something a bit clearer. Further to this if the anonymous class extends
anything it omits the parent class name in the error message (see
http://3v4l.org/UFEbo/rfc#tabs). Is this expected? Could it be something
more helpful?

Secondly, I think we need to either allow the behaviour or generate an
error (similar to anonymous closures) when an anonymous class is
serialized. Please observe the following behaviour..

$foo =3D new class {
    public function Bar () {
        echo 'bar';
    }
};

// This succeeds. I'd argue an error should be generated at this point
echo $serFoo =3D serialize($foo);

// Unserialize fails and a notice is generated
$unFoo =3D unserialize($serFoo);

// Error generated on call
$unFoo->Bar();

see http://3v4l.org/AJY6d/rfc#tabs

That=E2=80=99s all. Again, thanks for your efforts.

/@leedavis81

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Philip Sturgeon <pjsturgeon@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Good day!
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
>
> There's a little RFC + patch that Joe Watkins put together, and as
> before with the ArrayOf RFC, I'll be helping out.
>
> So, lets get this discussion rolling.
>
> It was declined for PHP 5 some time ago, and has returned now to try for
> PHP 7.
>
> The usage of anonymous classes to some will be instantly offensive,
> but really it comes down to the use case. The usage of anonymous
> functions compared to declared functions is pretty much the exact same
> thing as anonymous classes.
>
> Other than examples on the RFC, Fractal would certainly be happy to
> have them: http://fractal.thephpleague.com/transformers/
>
> Defining a class properly is certainly still going to be the majority
> of uses of classes in PHP. That helps with the Optimizer, and helps
> code reuse.
>
> Sadly due to the way in which people have had ONE CLASS ONE FILE
> drilled into their head since PEAR and continuing through Zend and
> PSR-0, it can become a PITA to add some simple functionality if a
> small class is needed for one tiny thing.
>
> Anonymous functions alleviate that annoyance with a simple and
> consistent feature that just give people a nice simple option to get
> their jobs done, without hitting autoloaders and file systems to do
> it.
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--001a113eca66935ab5051100d19b--