Re: Revisiting Anonymous Classes
| From: | Rowan Collins | Date: | Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:53:08 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Revisiting Anonymous Classes | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-75127@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 28/06/2014 14:36, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
I was surprised to find [2] (and even more so because I voted "No" on it ... and had no recollection of reading the RFC or voting on it). Most likely I did not see a use case for anonymous classes back then. I would like to propose the following syntax for declaring an anonymous class ...Apart from a possibly new use case (although the wiki page does list "it would also definitely be very useful for mocking in tests" among the "Use Cases from the Community"), how is this proposal different from the one which was rejected less than a year ago? Not that I particularly oppose it, but is there any reason to think that this will pass now when it didn't then? For that matter, has there ever been discussion of a "statute on limitations" (time of other conditions for reopening discussion) for re-proposing previously rejected features? Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]