Re: RFC: Anonymous Classes
| From: | Lazare Inepologlou | Date: | Mon, 23 Sep 2013 09:09:32 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Anonymous Classes | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-69266@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
2013/9/23 Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Joe Watkins wrote:
>
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
>
> This RFC misses one very important part: an argument for why this
> feature is useful. Syntax changes are likely to be extremely contentious
> and without convincingreasoning *why* we need this, we shouldn't even
> consider looking at an RFC.
>
>
I use anonymous classes very frequently in Java and in C#, and I would say
that they are quite useful. However the examples given in the RFC are
really bad ones. Why on earth would you need a constructor for an anonymous
class? Anonymous classes are used to implement quickly some interface.
Frankly, constructors are not part of any interface. Besides a constructor
is totally useless in an anonymous class as it will never be called after
the object is created.
Let's not rule out this feature yet. It's just a weak RFC, so let's wait
for better approaches.
Lazare INEPOLOGLOU
Ingénieur Logiciel