Re: RFC: Functional Interfaces

Oh, it's confusing text in the RFC, using the word "Interface" ... that's meant as a placeholder for InterfaceName. Cheers Joe On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote: > Morning Dmitry, > > In your example, they will do the same thing. > > Anon classes don't have lexical scope, I have a patch for that, and an > RFC, I'm just tidying it. > > Even when anon classes do have lexical scope, there is value in being > able to implement these kinds of interfaces using only a function. > > The changes to the vm are restricted to a few lines, that's not > seriously a problem, is it !? > > I don't see where I extend closure with an interface ... > > > zend_do_inheritance_ex(type, zend_ce_closure, 1); > > zend_class_implements(type, 1, interface); > > Cheers > Joe > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote: > >> <?php >> interface IFoo { >> public function method() : int; >> } >> >> $cb1 = function () implements IFoo : int { >> return 42; >> }; >> >> $cb2 = new class implements IFoo { >> function method() : int { >> return 42; >> } >> }; >> ?> >> >> Are $cb1 and $cb2 going to be the same (do the same)? >> Is this just a new syntax sugar, or a really new feature? >> >> According to implementation, I think, you shouldn't extend "zend_closure" >> with "interface". >> If this is a sugar, lets implement it as a sugar (without VM changes). >> >> But may be I didn't understand the idea at all :) >> >> Thanks. Dmitry. >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 13:22 >> To: PHP internals >> Subject: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Functional Interfaces >> >> Morning Internals, >> >> Please review the following RFC: >> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/functional-interfaces >> >> An implementation is provided, and is testable on 3v4l. >> >> Review of the implementation from those of you that do that would be >> good :) >> >> Cheers >> Joe >> > >