Re: __invokeStatic() method

On Mar 18, 2013 2:41 AM, "Thomas Bley" <thbley+php@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Pierre du Plessis > <pierre@pcservice.co.za> wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2013 9:35 PM, "Daniele Orlando" <dnl.rlnd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi List, > >> > >> I'm interested in proposing an RFC and I would know your opinion. > >> > >> === Current Situation === > >> Since PHP 5.3 we can use an object instance, who defines the __invoke() > >> method, as a callable object. > >> Example: > >> > >> // PHP Code. > >> class Runnable > >> { > >> public function __invoke() > >> { > >> echo "Runned"; > >> } > >> } > >> > >> $r = new Runnable(); > >> $r(); > >> > >> // Output > >> Runned > >> > >> === The Idea === > >> In Python, when you construct an object, you don't need to use the "new" > >> keyword but you just invoke the class name followed by "()", like the > > class > >> is a function. > >> Example: > >> > >> // Python Code. > >> class A: > >> pass > >> > >> A() > >> > >> // Output. > >> <__main__.A instance at %address> > >> > >> Now, would be interesting to extend the PHP __invoke() method adding an > >> __invokeStatic() method, like happens with __call() and __callStatic() > >> methods. > >> In this way could be possible to use a class name to invoke the > >> __invokeStatic() method. > >> Example: > >> > >> // PHP Code. > >> class TrueRunnable > >> { > >> public static function __invokeStatic() > >> { > >> echo "Runned"; > >> } > >> } > >> > >> TrueRunnable(); > >> > >> // Output. > >> Runned > >> > >> But the possibility are endless: > >> > >> class A > >> { > >> public static function __invokeStatic() > >> { > >> return new A(); > >> } > >> public method m() {} > >> } > >> > >> A()->m(); > >> > >> // or > >> > >> class A > >> { > >> private $_instance; > >> public static function __invokeStatic() > >> { > >> // Singleton pattern. > >> if (self::$_instance) { > >> return self::$_instance; > >> } > >> > >> return self::$_instance = new A(); > >> } > >> public method m() {} > >> } > >> > >> A()->m(); > >> > >> > >> === Conclusion === > >> This feature makes the __invoke() method consistent with the __call() and > >> __callStatic() methods, > >> and opens the door to many cool stuff. > >> > >> Any feedback is appreciated. > >> > >> Daniele Orlando > > > > I don't really see a use case for this, as you can already use the syntax > > A::method(); > > > > E.G class A { public static function invoke() { return new A; } > > > > public function m() { echo 'Runned'; } > > > > A::invoke()->m(); > > > > Your example above only saves a few characters to type and can lead to a > > lot of problems if you have a function with the same name as the class. > > Using A::invoke(), you need to know the name of "invoke()" and it's > hard to force users always to use the invoke() function. > Using A() would be more clean since all the static init(), factory(), > invoke(), getInstance() are gone. > Having __call(), __callStatic(), __invoke() and invokeStatic() would > make the overloading concept more consistent. > > Regards, > Thomas > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > Using A() looks too much like a function call. And there is still the issue with having a function name the same as the class name.