Re: Vote: Anonymous Classes

On 10/09/2013 12:22 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Joe Watkins <krakjoe@php.net> wrote:

On 10/07/2013 11:20 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote:

On 7 October 2013 11:13, Joe Watkins <krakjoe@php.net> wrote:

Morning Chaps,

          On the advice of many, I have restarted the vote, sorry for the

inconvenience/confusion ...

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/**anonymous_classes#voting<https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes#voting>(re-link, for the lazy) The voting options changed from choosing a version ("5.6", "5.7") or rejecting… too a much simpler, yes/no for sticking this into master. Which branch/release the feature makes it into is something to be decided down the line (ultimately, by the RMs).

Cheers Joe

Morning All,

         To anyone who has voted or will vote no; if you have voted no but

is something that could be done to the patch to change your mind, please do speak up :)

         If you voted/will vote no and there's nothing that can change your

mind, I'd still be interested in hearing the reasoning ...

         This is a pretty quiet vote ... as this is the first RFC I have

put forward, I'd like a bit more feedback so I can avoid the avoidable in the future ... Cheers Joe -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

I have voted no based on the lack of support for serialization/unserialization, and I think that we agreed that without somehow naming the class, we can't support that, and having a name would defeat the purpose of this feature. I'm looking forward to nested classes though. Tyrael,

As mentioned in the RFC, there's nothing stopping you from serializing an anonymous class. Anonymous classes are named, they _have_ to be; they are named after the codepath (so file/function/class) prefixed with namespace where they are used ... so in fact there's nothing wrong with the vast majority of applications using serialization of anonymous class objects. Nested classes is more complicated than anonymous ones, if this doesn't get in on a vote I don't see nested classes getting in either; if the reason people are voting no is really that "we need to concentrate on bugs", then what is really the point in preparing another RFC before 5.6 is out in the wild ... I hear the syntax sugar thing ... but it's starting to wear a bin thin, it's a phrase thrown around without much justification or thought: Almost everything you add at the Zend level which requires some kind of syntax (so, pretty much everything) can be described as syntactic sugar. It is only a parser modification, but that should only make it more appealing, we aren't asking anything new of Zend ... In any case, I appreciate the input :) Cheers Joe