Em qui., 9 de jan. de 2020 às 20:57, Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> escreveu: > > > On Jan 9, 2020, at 6:53 PM, Marcio Almada <marcio.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Because we would be expanding a construct that already looks > > inappropriate from a purely > > semantic POV with aliases that also would allow inappropriate usage > > `some_function::interface`. > > I'd rather have a generally unsatisfying construct than a set of > > "denormalized" constructs with > > equal potential for human inaccuracy. > > > > Perhaps the problem is that `::class` was not exactly a good language > > design decision in the first place or maybe > > it made more sense in the past and as the language evolved it started > > to appear to be named poorly. > > > > A more _general_ construct like a `nameof` operator, as we have in C#, > > could have been a brighter idea. See: > > Okay, I get your perspective on this now. > > So let us add ::nameof and deprecate ::class, then? And apply it for all > symbols? :-) > > -Mike
It seems late to mess with `::class`, maybe not for having `nameof`. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
