Re: RFC proposal: Invokable interface

On 30 March 2026 01:32:24 BST, Osama Aldemeery <aldemeery@gmail.com> wrote: >The only difference is that __toString() has a fixed signature, so >Stringable can enforce it through a normal interface declaration. >__invoke() doesn't >have a fixed signature, so Invokable uses an enforcement handler instead. >Different mechanism, same contract. The difference is caused by the >variable signature, not by any fundamental difference in what the interface >represents. I think that is a very fundamental difference. Given $foo instanceof Stringable, the user knows they can write (string)$foo and the object will do something - that's already a pretty weak contract, in my eyes, but it is a contract. Given $foo instanceof Invokable, the user knows even less. They know they can invoke the object somehow, but there's a fair chance that $foo() will fail because of mandatory parameters. Can you give an example where this very loose contract would be useful? Regards, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]