> Hi,
>
> Le Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:07:43 +0200, Matīss Roberts Treinis a écrit :
> > Not only that. This potentially might break compatibility with many
> > software products already out there.
>
> I don't see how it could break existing software as it is not a
> modification of an existing method but a brand new one.
>
It would break existing software if you have a class and function with the
same name.
Consider the following example:
class foo {
}
function foo()
{
}
Now what if you have several calls to foo() in your existing application?
With the new change, will those calls call the function, or invoke the
__invokeStatic method if it is available?
>
> > Also, this might lead to many
> > misunderstandings and, in fact, ambiguous code. Consider the sample.
> >
> > $name = 'something';
> > $something = $name(); // What is this - a function call or object?
> >
> > Fact is, we can not know that unless a) do a search in code b) var_dump?
>
> As long as you use syntax like $foo = new $bar() or $foo = $bar(), you'll
> always wonder if the function/class behind $bar exist or not, etc...
> And it is easy to remove any ambiguity by using $something = $functionName
> () or $something = $className() or add proper comments. It's only up to
> the dev.
>
> I find that __invokeStatic() could be a quite cool syntactic sugar.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Bruno
I'm not against the function, just the implementation of it. __invokeStatic
might be useful in some (rare) cases,
but I don't think the proposed syntax will work.
Also I'm sure that most use cases can anyway be solved by using the
__callStatic method
