On 09/24/2013 01:30 PM, Kristopher wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Terence Copestake <
terence.copest...@gmail.com> wrote:
Playing devil's advocate here, could this feature make the language more
expressive?
Take for example an API where you'd typically wrap a method call in
try/catch blocks to handle the various "outcomes" e.g. a user login, you'd
maybe have a UserDisabled exception, a UserAlreadyLoggedIn exception, a
UserPasswordIncorrect exception, etc.
With the addition of this syntactic sugar, the method could instead accept
an anonymous class with a onDisabled, onLoggedIn, onPasswordIncorrect
methods.
Perhaps it would also have a performance benefit over cascading through
catch blocks? Though someone else would have to confirm that.
Why wouldn't you want this to a concrete, real class? I don't see the
benefit, in your example, of doing an anonymous class vs defining an actual
class and passing that in as the handler.
People express themselves in different ways ...
It is mostly just about expressing the same thing in different ways, we
can find justification for it when pushed, because we are being pushed ...
I'm a bit confused by this idea that every RFC has to be accompanied by
a long list of use cases, expressing ideas that cannot conceivably be
expressed any other way ... that doesn't make any sense, you can do
almost anything a bunch of ways ...
I think enough use cases have been provided, it's an established, widely
used, part of OO elsewhere: The _only_ question is should we have it,
which is incidentally the reason the RFC was sparse in the first place ...
Cheers
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
