Re: RFC: Anonymous Classes
| From: | Nicolas Grekas | Date: | Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:55:20 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Anonymous Classes | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-69379@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
If you need access to the methods in AProxifier then why does the anonymous
> class extend A, you should extend AProxifier as you would with any other
> class.
>
Because A has the behavior I want to extend?
An other example:
class A {...}
class B {...}
class Factory
{
protected function protectedMethod() {...}
function getA()
{
return new class extends A {.. call Factory::protectedMethod()? ..};
}
function getB()
{
return new class extends B {.. call Factory::protectedMethod()? ..};
}
}
This is possible and welcomed with closures.
I see it as useful for anonymous classes than it is for anonymous functions.
What do others you think about it?