Re: Re: __invoke concerns

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 20:43, Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net> wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Hannes Magnusson > <hannes.magnusson@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 18:45, Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Christan, >>>> >>>> Could you please look into this patch. >>>> I'm not sure if explicit declaration of Closure::__invoke() is good idea. As >>>> it cannot provide proper argument information. >>>> >>>> May be the patch which you propose already solves this problem for >>>> reflection. (I didn't have time to look into it). >>>> >>> >>> After discussing it with Dmitry, I removed the reflection part from >>> the patch, giving full reflection info on Closures seems like a better >>> idea, even if it requires patching Reflection itself. >> >> I'm confused. What exactly is the problem you solved? >> > > Since no Invokable interface can sanely be implemented, it won't get > implemented. However, my patch adds flexibility for future internal > classes willing to use $x(); by defining get_closure as a handler. If committed, can we put in our CS that internal classes cannot use it? I can almost not imagine more confusing things. -Hannes