Re: [RFC][Dynamic class constant fetch]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, at 9:45 AM, Ralf Lang wrote: > Hi Ilija, > > Am 04.11.2022 um 15:25 schrieb Ilija Tovilo: >> Please let me know if you have any thoughts. >> >> Ilija > > That new way of accessing class constants dynamically does not really > make things more readable for me. Maybe I just need to get used to it, > but especially that last example would make my head spin without > additional comments: > > Foo::{test('foo')}::{test('bar')}; Maybe I miss the use case. What kind > of code would benefit > from this? Wouldn't just using constant() for dynamically built > constant > strings be more legible? Maybe in a separate line? In the past I used a > lot of flag constants backed by integers. A lot of these use cases have > become classes/types in their own right since. When do you use these > constants? Just my thoughts. Dynamically building strings for syntax is almost never more legible. :-) I doubt you'd ever double them up the way some of the examples show. In practice, the single Class::{$const} or Enum::{$name} would be the most common uses, I predict, and those are way nicer to read than the 3x longer constant() with string concat. --Larry Garfield