Hello internals,
Ondřej Mirtes (author of PHPStan) remarked to me in August that Closure is not a subtype of callable.
The implementation of this is quite straight forward and can be seen on GitHub. [1]
The question is if there are any concern or not and if this requires an RFC or can just be merged as is.
Best regards,
Gina P. Banyard
Hello internals,
Ondřej Mirtes (author of PHPStan) remarked to me in August that Closure is not a subtype of callable.
The implementation of this is quite straight forward and can be seen on GitHub. [1]
The question is if there are any concern or not and if this requires an RFC or can just be merged as is.Best regards,
Gina P. Banyard
Hey Gina,
I think saying “Closure should be a subtype of callable” would require an RFC. To say that “Closure should satisfy the callable type check” is just an oversight/bug. They are functionally the same IMO, just different perspectives.
— Rob
Le 12 nov. 2024 à 14:53, Gina P. Banyard internals@gpb.moe a écrit :
Hello internals,
Ondřej Mirtes (author of PHPStan) remarked to me in August that Closure is not a subtype of callable.
The implementation of this is quite straight forward and can be seen on GitHub. [1]
The question is if there are any concern or not and if this requires an RFC or can just be merged as is.Best regards,
Gina P. Banyard
Hi Gina,
That seems reasonable.
But personally, I would be more interested in having a type equivalent to callable&object, that is all objects that implement the __invoke() magic method (this is a strict super-type of \Closure).
—Claude
Le 12 nov. 2024 à 14:53, Gina P. Banyard internals@gpb.moe a écrit :
Hello internals,
Ondřej Mirtes (author of PHPStan) remarked to me in August that Closure is not a subtype of callable.
The implementation of this is quite straight forward and can be seen on GitHub. [1]
The question is if there are any concern or not and if this requires an RFC or can just be merged as is.Best regards,
Gina P. Banyard
Hi Gina,
That seems reasonable.
But personally, I would be more interested in having a type equivalent
tocallable&object, that is all objects that implement the
__invoke()magic method (this is a strict super-type of \Closure).—Claude
I am in favor of Closure being covarant to callable, and to a new pseudo-type for Closure|Object-with-__invoke. (Maybe Invokable?) I do think they'd require brief RFCs, but both would have my support.
--Larry Garfield
But personally, I would be more interested in having a type equivalent to
callable&object, that is all objects that implement the__invoke()magic method (this is a strict super-type of \Closure).—Claude
An Invokable interface, similar to Stringable would be the solution to this.
And this is something that Ondřej also brought up in the PR.
I would be in favour for such an interface (considering the cat is already out of the bag of auto-implementing things with Stringable).
But I don't think I have the time/bandwidth to work on this, so if anyone wants something "easy" to work on that would be it.
Best regards,
Gina P. Banyard
There are some weird cases with callable which is why they aren't
allowed as a property type. I don't remember all the edges, but if we
are sure that we cannot hit those with simple co-/contra-variance,
then I don't think this needs an RFC and we can just merge the PR.
There are some weird cases with
callablewhich is why they aren't
allowed as a property type. I don't remember all the edges, but if we
are sure that we cannot hit those with simple co-/contra-variance,
then I don't think this needs an RFC and we can just merge the PR.
The reason that callable is not allowed as a property type is due to scope/method visibility issues.
See the discussion section of Nikita's Deprecate partially supported callables RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate_partially_supported_callables#discussion
The callable type is allowed as a parameter and return type, and Closure is "better" defined than just callable.
Best regards,
Gina P. Banyard
There are some weird cases with
callablewhich is why they aren't
allowed as a property type. I don't remember all the edges, but if we
are sure that we cannot hit those with simple co-/contra-variance,
then I don't think this needs an RFC and we can just merge the PR.The reason that callable is not allowed as a property type is due to scope/method visibility issues.
See the discussion section of Nikita's Deprecate partially supported callables RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate_partially_supported_callables#discussion
The callable type is allowed as a parameter and return type, and Closure is "better" defined than just callable.
Then personally I see no reason to make this an RFC and would
recommend merging it in as a gap in existing features (not really a
new feature).
Hello internals,
Ondřej Mirtes (author of PHPStan) remarked to me in August that Closure is not a subtype of callable.
The implementation of this is quite straight forward and can be seen on GitHub. [1]
The question is if there are any concern or not and if this requires an RFC or can just be merged as is.Best regards,
Gina P. Banyard
Hi Gina
Makes sense to me.
Kind regards
Niels