I think the syntax is wired.
Instead of classname::class I would prefer something like class(classname).
I am not a big fan of the syntax class(ShortClass\Name) as to me it looks like a function call.
Personally, I like drawing parallels from the same languages that I think helped shaped PHP's object-model. In this case, the Java has a similar enough feature where Type.class returns a class object (in our case we just need to return a string of the FQ class name).
Your suggestion is similar to that of, I think, C# where typeof(SomeClassName) would return a reflection-like/type object where you could get the FullName():
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/58918ffs%28v=vs.71%29.aspx
I could go either way, at this point (after the April discussion on the matter), I had not really given much thought to class() lang. construct.
Personally, ::class feels a bit better to me in that the context feels more "compile-time", like __CLASS__, and the NS resolutions, than does class() that you suggest.
From a wider perspective, I've seen these variations in the wild:
class Foo {
const CLASSNAME = __CLASS__;
// or
const _class = __CLASS__;
}
Which allows for the usage:
Foo::CLASSNAME;
for example.
FWIW, both reusing the class() keyword making it BC, which is something I like.
-ralph