Re: [RFC] Anonymous Classes

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Philip Sturgeon <pjsturgeon@gmail.com> wrote: > Good day! > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes > > There's a little RFC + patch that Joe Watkins put together, and as > before with the ArrayOf RFC, I'll be helping out. > > So, lets get this discussion rolling. > Anonymous classes open up slightly new ways to do things. I like to write a lot of small classes for the purposes of DI and re-usability. Because of that, the code often looks like: $foo = new Foo($depend1, $depend2, function() { return 'my custom behavior'; }); That's fine when there's only one callback needed, but beyond that it breaks down. This becomes more readable: abstract class Foo { ... } $foo = new class($depend1, $depend2) extends Foo { public function doFoo() { } public function doBar() { } } These cases for me are always single-use for the scope of the application, and often it's inside configuration blocks that are custom per environment. I have no need to name the class other than PHP doesn't support anonymous ones. I'm +1 on the concept, depending on what the maintenance impact that this would bring to PHP's core. There are enough other ways to accomplish the same goals that I don't think this is "must have", even though I'd definitely use it. Regarding this syntax (from other discussions on the list): $foo = class { }; I think if such a thing were supported, maybe $foo would just be a ReflectionClass object. (I haven't really thought that one through...) -- Matthew Leverton