Re: Is there an RFC/discussion for ::class being a specific type?

Hey André, On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 6:22 PM André Hänsel <andre@webkr.de> wrote: > It is common (with DI systems for example) and to my knowledge not > particularly discouraged to have function parameters that are supposed to > accept something like Foo::class, which currently is a string. > > It seems logical to ask for a special type that can hold class names, so > that parameters that can accept a class name can be type hinted more > specifically than just (any) "string". > > Regardless of whether or not such a proposal would be accepted or declined > (for complexity reasons maybe) I couldn't even find any such proposal. Has > this really never been asked? > In vimeo/psalm and phpstan/phpstan, there is a pseudo-type called class-string. This class-string type is kinda problematic though, because Foo::class does **not** autoload Foo (by design), and therefore a custom runtime type would be a bit too "optimistic" about its values, as it would not verify anything. Greets, Marco Pivetta http://twitter.com/Ocramius http://ocramius.github.com/