Re: [RFC]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 12:04, Manuel Canga <manuelcanga@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 08:58, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 12 February 2020 23:12:34 GMT+00:00, Manuel Canga < >> manuelcanga@gmail.com> wrote: >> >El mié., 12 feb. 2020 23:01, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> >> >escribió: >> >In your example, you has the same options: >> > >> >> >> >1. Change import >> >2. Add namespace: >> > >> >['Acme\Global\I18N',\translate::function] >> >> >> There is no collision between 'Foo::translate()' and 'translate()', so >> there is no reason to change the import. That's true of executing the >> functions, so it should remain be true of resolving them to strings. >> >> There is collision with import which you added. > There is no collision. This is perfectly valid PHP code: namespace Foo; use \explode; class Bomb { public static function explode() { return 'Bang! Bang!'; } } $bangs = explode(' ', Bomb::explode()); There is no ambiguity here, explode(...) refers precisely to the global function 'explode' which is unrelated to the class method 'Bomb::explode'. The same applies if I import the function from somewhere other than the global namespace: namespace Foo; use Acme\BetterArrayFunctions\explode; class Bomb { public static function explode() { return 'Bang! Bang!'; } } $bangs = explode(' ', Bomb::explode()); Again, there is no ambiguity, explode(...) refers precisely to the function 'Acme\BetterArrayFunctions\explode, which is unrelated to the class method 'Bomb::explode. "explode::function" should mean "if I run explode() here, what is the fully-qualified name of the function that would run?" If there's no ambiguity of which function would run, there's no ambiguity of what value ::function should return. > * Here, 'my_function' is only a string. Maybe a global function( without > namespace ) or maybe a method or other case. With native array_map is a > global function. However, you can have a function like this: > > function array_map( $method, $array) { > \Collection::$method( $array ); > } > > In both cases, you could do: > > array_map(\my_function::function, [] ); > In the second case, it would be incorrect to use \my_function::function, because you do not want the answer to the question "if I run \my_function() here, what is the fully-qualified name of the function that would run?" Annotating the argument that way wouldn't be useful for tools, either - e.g. an IDE like PHPStorm would see ::function and offer "jump to definition", but in this case it would jump to the definition of the global function my_function, which is actually irrelevant. > > >> Importantly, it might not work at all, if ::function gives an error if >> the function doesn't exist. >> >> > ::function only would retrieve string, like as ::class, exists or not. In > fach, that code might not work at all due to class. What matter if Class > does't exist ?. ::class doesn't produce error. Look: > > http://sandbox.onlinephpfunctions.com/code/0a8466a00974bc1ffc12b219569ced55753327bdŽ¶zü > 2Z0x`ÁN€Ëý > As pointed out elsewhere, an implementation of ::function would need to be smarter than ::class, because unqualified function calls look first in the current namespace, then fall back to global scope. For example: namespace Foo; function explode() {} echo implode::function; // Should return 'implode', because that is what implode() would run echo explode::function; // Should return 'Foo\explode', because that is what explode() would run Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]