I was wondering... PHP is the only language I know of where you have to
write (new Foo())->bar() instead of
new Foo()->bar(). This is particularly apparent with the builder pattern:
$developer->drink((new Coffee())->withCream()->withSugar());
$logger->log((new LogMessage())->withMessage('Coffee was drunk'));
Since new Foo()->bar() cannot (and probably should not) be used to
"dynamically instantiate a new thing of the class
name returned by function Foo()", it seems like it would be no problem to
change the precedence rules so that
new Foo()->bar() means "instantiate a new Foo and call bar() on it".
It's currently a syntax error, so allowing it would be automatically
compatible.
Has this ever been discussed before?
I was wondering... PHP is the only language I know of where you have to
write(new Foo())->bar()instead of
new Foo()->bar(). This is particularly apparent with the builder pattern:$developer->drink((new Coffee())->withCream()->withSugar());
$logger->log((new LogMessage())->withMessage('Coffee was drunk'));Since
new Foo()->bar()cannot (and probably should not) be used to
"dynamically instantiate a new thing of the class
name returned by function Foo()", it seems like it would be no problem to
change the precedence rules so that
new Foo()->bar()means "instantiate a new Foo and call bar() on it".It's currently a syntax error, so allowing it would be automatically
compatible.Has this ever been discussed before?
Mike Schinkel and I recently discussed this off-list. Mike, now’s your
time to chime in with your ideas on this. :-)
My $0.02 is that this is unnecessary, but I can see how others might
want it to avoid parenthesis soup.
Cheers,
Ben
I was wondering... PHP is the only language I know of where you have to
write(new Foo())->bar()instead of
new Foo()->bar(). This is particularly apparent with the builder pattern:$developer->drink((new Coffee())->withCream()->withSugar());
$logger->log((new LogMessage())->withMessage('Coffee was drunk'));Since
new Foo()->bar()cannot (and probably should not) be used to
"dynamically instantiate a new thing of the class
name returned by function Foo()", it seems like it would be no problem to
change the precedence rules so that
new Foo()->bar()means "instantiate a new Foo and call bar() on it".It's currently a syntax error, so allowing it would be automatically
compatible.Has this ever been discussed before?
Mike Schinkel and I recently discussed this off-list. Mike, now’s your
time to chime in with your ideas on this. :-)
Thanks for the invite.
I had asked Ben what he thought about allowing the following syntax as a synonym for new Foo():
Foo::new()
That would be backward compatible because you currently cannot have a method named new().
My $0.02 is that this is unnecessary, but I can see how others might
want it to avoid parenthesis soup.
Yes, off list Ben said he did not see the need for it, so I did not bring it up on the list.
But now since he has invited me to... :-)
If we had such syntax then that would also Andre and others to use (and reduce the necessity of needing so many parens:
Foo::new()->bar()
Thoughts?
-Mike
Mike Schinkel wrote:
I had asked Ben what he thought about allowing the following syntax as a synonym for
new Foo():Foo::new()
This can already be done in application code, having the language add a synonym is IMO unnecessary magic and breaks the
principle of the least surprise.
The solution proposed in https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=70549 however is very similar to what I'm asking.
Note that in that bug entry the solution was based on the premise that $obj = new $foo->bar(); was valid code, which
it isn't. (https://3v4l.org/lpN1T)
Note that in that bug entry the solution was based on the premise that
$obj = new $foo->bar();was valid code, which
it isn't. (https://3v4l.org/lpN1T)
Looking at the error message, that code parsed as valid, but failed at
run-time, because it was looking for a property $bar, not a method
bar(). Working version: https://3v4l.org/S9gLf
It's equivalent to:
$className = $foo->bar;
$obj = new $className();
I think this means that just changing the operator precedence would be a
compatibility break, and we would need to allow a more restricted
version, as discussed on that feature request.
Regards,
--
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
Rowan Tommins wrote:
it was looking for a property $bar, not a method bar(). Working version: https://3v4l.org/S9gLf
Oh, right.
we would need to allow a more restricted version, as discussed on that feature request.
Yeah, that would be great. I think it would already cover the by far most common use case.
I was wondering... PHP is the only language I know of where you have to
write(new Foo())->bar()instead of
new Foo()->bar(). This is particularly apparent with the builder
pattern:$developer->drink((new Coffee())->withCream()->withSugar());
$logger->log((new LogMessage())->withMessage('Coffee was drunk'));Since
new Foo()->bar()cannot (and probably should not) be used to
"dynamically instantiate a new thing of the class
name returned by function Foo()", it seems like it would be no problem
to
change the precedence rules so that
new Foo()->bar()means "instantiate a new Foo and call bar() on it".It's currently a syntax error, so allowing it would be automatically
compatible.Has this ever been discussed before?
Mike Schinkel and I recently discussed this off-list. Mike, now’s your
time to chime in with your ideas on this. :-)Thanks for the invite.
I had asked Ben what he thought about allowing the following syntax as a
synonym fornew Foo():Foo::new()
That would be backward compatible because you currently cannot have a
method namednew().
I have static ctors named new in multiple codebases:
https://3v4l.org/FudWpk
I was wondering... PHP is the only language I know of where you have to
write(new Foo())->bar()instead of
new Foo()->bar(). This is particularly apparent with the builder
pattern:$developer->drink((new Coffee())->withCream()->withSugar());
$logger->log((new LogMessage())->withMessage('Coffee was drunk'));Since
new Foo()->bar()cannot (and probably should not) be used to
"dynamically instantiate a new thing of the class
name returned by function Foo()", it seems like it would be no problem
to
change the precedence rules so that
new Foo()->bar()means "instantiate a new Foo and call bar() on it".It's currently a syntax error, so allowing it would be automatically
compatible.Has this ever been discussed before?
Mike Schinkel and I recently discussed this off-list. Mike, now’s your
time to chime in with your ideas on this. :-)Thanks for the invite.
I had asked Ben what he thought about allowing the following syntax as a
synonym fornew Foo():Foo::new()
That would be backward compatible because you currently cannot have a
method namednew().I have static ctors named
newin multiple codebases:
https://3v4l.org/FudWpk
Sorry, mails synchronized now, and I did not realize that you already had
a waterfall of responses related to this :|
I was wondering... PHP is the only language I know of where you have to
write(new Foo())->bar()instead of
new Foo()->bar(). This is particularly apparent with the builder pattern:$developer->drink((new Coffee())->withCream()->withSugar());
$logger->log((new LogMessage())->withMessage('Coffee was drunk'));Since
new Foo()->bar()cannot (and probably should not) be used to
"dynamically instantiate a new thing of the class
name returned by function Foo()", it seems like it would be no problem to
change the precedence rules so that
new Foo()->bar()means "instantiate a new Foo and call bar() on it".It's currently a syntax error, so allowing it would be automatically
compatible.Has this ever been discussed before?
See https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=70549.
--
Christoph M. Becker
I was wondering... PHP is the only language I know of where you have to
write(new Foo())->bar()instead of
new Foo()->bar(). This is particularly apparent with the builder pattern:$developer->drink((new Coffee())->withCream()->withSugar());
$logger->log((new LogMessage())->withMessage('Coffee was drunk'));Since
new Foo()->bar()cannot (and probably should not) be used to
"dynamically instantiate a new thing of the class
name returned by function Foo()", it seems like it would be no problem to
change the precedence rules so that
new Foo()->bar()means "instantiate a new Foo and call bar() on it".It's currently a syntax error, so allowing it would be automatically
compatible.Has this ever been discussed before?
The last comment on that issue reads:
@Nikic
Good news. I'll prepare RFC for 7.1.
Was there an RFC for it? I can’t find one.
Cheers,
Ben
I was wondering... PHP is the only language I know of where you have to
write(new Foo())->bar()instead of
new Foo()->bar(). This is particularly apparent with the builder pattern:$developer->drink((new Coffee())->withCream()->withSugar());
$logger->log((new LogMessage())->withMessage('Coffee was drunk'));Since
new Foo()->bar()cannot (and probably should not) be used to
"dynamically instantiate a new thing of the class
name returned by function Foo()", it seems like it would be no problem to
change the precedence rules so that
new Foo()->bar()means "instantiate a new Foo and call bar() on it".It's currently a syntax error, so allowing it would be automatically
compatible.Has this ever been discussed before?
The last comment on that issue reads:
@Nikic
Good news. I'll prepare RFC for 7.1.Was there an RFC for it? I can’t find one.
I don't think there ever was an RFC for this.
--
Christoph M. Becker
Hi!
I was wondering... PHP is the only language I know of where you have to
write(new Foo())->bar()instead of
new Foo()->bar(). This is particularly apparent with the builder pattern:
Enabling something that is syntax error now sounds pretty innocent, but
I wonder if messing with precedence would cause some deeper consequences
in different expressions. We need to be careful here given how much code
(and how much weird code) there exists in PHP. If we can guarantee that
we can enable this construct without causing any side effects, then it's
fine I think.
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com