Re: [VOTE] ::class feature to resolve namespaced class names to scalars

Hi Ralph, You persuade me. :) The SOMETHING::class syntax looked wired to me because I didn't understand it. However, the SOMETHING::class syntax might be considered as a reference to a predefined class constant and in this case it looks quite consistent. I suggest to reflect it in RFC and documentation (if we agree to include it in release) to avoid future misunderstanding. Also I would expect SOMETHING::class to work in all cases where class constants work. e.g. self::class, parent::class, static::class, $obj::class. To do it for parent, static and $obj you'll probably need a new opcode - ZEND_FETCH_CLASSNAME that must be very similar to ZEND_FETCH_CLASS. May be it's possible to do the same using ZEND_FETCH_CONSTANT, but I don't think it makes sense to complicate the existing opcode. SOMETHING::class must be consistent with traits. In case all the above works, I say +1 and even may help with implementation. Finally, may be SOMETHING::__CLASS__ is a bit more clear than SOMETHING::class. Thanks. Dmitry. On 09/14/2012 12:51 AM, Ralph Schindler wrote:

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