Mathieu Rochette On Friday, January 23rd, 2026 at 09:37, Tim Düsterhus <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > Am 2026-01-22 18:30, schrieb > > Mathieu Rochette > > : > > > I often whished something like this existed :) Didn't get trough to > > suggest it because I wasn't sure of the syntax either (and lazyness) > > > Thank you for participating in the discussion of this RFC then. Having > more voices available helps building things that suit the community best > :-) > > > still, my syntax suggestions: > > > > array_map(DateTimeImmutable->format("c"), $dates); > > > Unfortunately this doesn't work, because it is a already-legal method > call on a method stored in the constant called `DateTimeImmutable`. See: > https://3v4l.org/3khkT#veol ohhh then, continuing on bikeshedding, I think I still prefer `?::DateTimeImmutable->format("c")` or `(? as DateTimeImmutable)->format("c")` as Larry mentioned. `(DateTimeImmutable)?->format("c")` feels a bit weird. Reminds me too much of the null-safe operator. > > > I noticed `?->method(?)` was considered; evne if it was possible, I > > would prefer if the type was explict, as you may want to use an > > interface name (or a union type, etc.) too > > > Union types would likely be unsupported either way, since multiple > members of the union could have incompatible signatures for the same > They could have incompatible signatures, yes, but they also could have compatible ones too. It's not a deal breaker. I don't imagine needing this in practice. But I don't see why the language would prevent that; I can already make that mistake with short closures or any methods. For me, it's the role of the static analyzer to tell me if I made such a mistake (or runtime errors ^^). > Interfaces are fully supported with the currently proposed > syntax (it's explicitly mentioned in the RFC). > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus
publickey - [email protected] - 0x8D30BA0E.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
