Re: [RFC] Anonymous Classes

Matthew, On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Matthew Leverton <leverton@gmail.com> wrote: >>> $foo = class extends Callback { ... } >>> $bar = new $foo; >> >> Nope, none of that. Wrap that in a function or clone it perhaps. >> > Are you actively against that functionality? (I don't think it's very > useful, but was wondering if you think it's a bad idea for some > reason.) > > I'm not sure what people think it should return. The name of the > anonymous class?? > > e.g., similar to: > > class Foo { } > $foo = 'Foo'; > $fooInstance = new $foo; > > That seems odd to me. It could just return a ReflectionClass object: > > $reflector = class { public function bar() { } }; > $foo = $reflector->newInstance(); > $foo->bar(); > > But I don't know if that would feel out of place. Otherwise, it seems > like it would need to return some sort of "Class" object that could be > typecasted, etc ... but in some ways that's what a ReflectionClass > already is. > > Just throwing that out there. > > Big +1 on the RFC as presented. > > -- > Matthew Leverton Thanks for the example! I would say: Yes, I am actively against that stuff. Firstly, at this time no part of PHP that I know of will smash a reflection object at you unless you specifically interact with the reflection API and ask for it. That in itself is a major nope. Secondly, it am unsure of the uses. you can wrap that in a function or shove it in a named class if you need to create multiple instances of it. Or, as I said, there is clone. If usage of this simple feature starts to show that people feel constrained by not having this extra feature, then I would say we should add that later. I am a big fan of keeping it simple and introducing things as people need them, instead of trying to cover all future use cases. :)