On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> How would this be different from defining a function MyClass?
Actually, I just found myself wanting this the other day. The class
name in question was being defined in a config file, which the user
would be free to override with their own class name (and a closure was
ruled out because this config file could be xml/ini/etc). There are
plenty of other ways I decided I could work around this, but I did
stop and think that something like __invokeStatic() would be nice.
My main rationale for wanting this was that classes can be resolved
via an autoloader, whereas functions cannot.
However, I could definitely see where this could get sticky. For example:
<?php
function MyClass() {
return true;
}
abstract class MyClass {
public static function __invokeStatic()
{
return false;
}
}
$className = 'MyClass';
var_dump($className());
?>
What would the output be in a case like this? Right now, while it's
horrible practice to share names across functions and classes, they
don't actually share the same namespace. Something like
__invokeStatic() would make it ambiguous in some cases (like above),
so I'm not really sure how that could be resolved.
--
Evan Coury
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
