Pre proposal for "Class extension functions" View as Markdown

I want to do RFS proposal for new language concept - Class extension
functions.

Bring a little Javascript into PHP? Hrmm, maybe. I can see some value,
though I'd offer a few thoughts:

1. Consider requiring that a class opt in to allowing these methods.
   e.g. class DateTime implements MethodExtensions {}. I know that
   this cuts out the power of this feature considerable, but it also
   limits the unexpected damage from that power.

2. Consider the impact on scoping. If a mixin can suddently access
   private properties in a foreign class, that may violate assumptions
   made by that class. Maybe treat mixins as having public scope to
   avoid this problem, that would also avoid much of my worries expressed
   in #1.

3. Pure bikeshed, I would make the syntax use the :: delimiter rather
   than ->. e.g. function DateTime::localTime() { ... } But that's
   my C++ hat speaking.

-Sara

Hello.

I want to do RFS proposal for new language concept - Class extension
functions.

Syntax will looks like:

function DateTime->localTime() {
return $this->format('H:i');
}

$date = new DateTime();

echo $date->localTime();

Realisation draft already written (
https://github.com/rjhdby/php-src/commit/a54d7d3f8504d2e15908bb0e44de0b2f87683872
)

It is interesting or not?

Definitely interesting. The patch doesn't seem to handle inheritance
conflicts, though. For instance, if I add something to a base class
that ends up conflicting with a sub-class that is already defined. It
may not need to handle it in any particular way, but should be
specified at least.

Hello.

I want to do RFS proposal for new language concept - Class extension
functions.

Syntax will looks like:

function DateTime->localTime() {
return $this->format('H:i');
}

$date = new DateTime();

echo $date->localTime();

Realisation draft already written (
https://github.com/rjhdby/php-src/commit/a54d7d3f8504d2e15908bb0e44de0b2f87683872
)

It is interesting or not?

From a user land perspective, I think this is a proverbial truck of boxes of cans of worms.

For reference: monkey patching methods onto built-in classes is what gives you shenanigans like the discussion about [].smoosh in Javascript.

This just opens up a ridiculously wide scope for “we can’t add method X because of a BC break in userland code”.

The only way I could get behind this, is if it’s made clear in the docs/RFC/wiki/written in the sky/etched on the moon via laser, that literally no future RFC will ever consider “a user land BC break because of ‘class extension functions’ in the wild" a valid reason to reject the RFC. The only officially supported use of this, should be for the one good use of monkey patching in JS: polyfills for missing functionality in older runtimes. For example, SplFileObject was added in PHP 5.1.0, but didn’t have an fread() method until 5.5.11.

Cheers

Stephen

Hi!

I want to do RFS proposal for new language concept - Class extension
functions.

Syntax will looks like:

function DateTime->localTime() {
return $this->format('H:i');
}

I feel this is inviting trouble. If you need additional functionality,
why not extend the class? Or write a function that accepts DateTime as
an argument? This encourages a style of programming where you never know
which object does what. Even in JS, as far as I know, it's not exactly
the recommended style. But in PHP I don't think we should be doing this.

Moreover, if your method accesses private variables (that's the only
reason why external method can't do the same) then your code needs to
change if private structure of the class changes, which violates
encapsulation. And on top of that we have the same namespacing problems
we've had when we had no namespaces - what if two packages get a bright
idea to define localTime on DateTime? What if they do it in a very
slightly different way?

I think this wouldn't add much what we already can do, but will invite
style of programming that is best avoided.

Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com

Hi!

I want to do RFS proposal for new language concept - Class extension
functions.

Syntax will looks like:

function DateTime->localTime() {
return $this->format('H:i');
}

I feel this is inviting trouble. If you need additional functionality,
why not extend the class? Or write a function that accepts DateTime as
an argument? This encourages a style of programming where you never know
which object does what. Even in JS, as far as I know, it's not exactly
the recommended style. But in PHP I don't think we should be doing this.

Moreover, if your method accesses private variables (that's the only
reason why external method can't do the same) then your code needs to
change if private structure of the class changes, which violates
encapsulation. And on top of that we have the same namespacing problems
we've had when we had no namespaces - what if two packages get a bright
idea to define localTime on DateTime? What if they do it in a very
slightly different way?

I think this wouldn't add much what we already can do, but will invite
style of programming that is best avoided.

Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com