<?php
namespace foo;
function bar(){}
var_dump(bar::class); // string(7) "foo\bar"
?>
This was not explained in the RFC at all, and had I known this I would
have voted against it personally.
How would you suggest it be different, if not a "compile-time name
expansion for classes"?
On a personal note, I've gotten plenty of benefit from the feature which
(again, for me) totally eclipses the only very small regret that ::class
looks like a class constant lookup. That syntactical point could have
gone either way, but I feel like the accepted syntax is still a good choice.
Your example above might attempt to cause some mis-direction to the
reader of the code a bit because you have clearly defined a symbol
(function) called "bar", yet you're still name-expanding a class called
"bar", which technically could be living in the same namespace in a
different file covered by an autoloader. bar::class still does actually
mean foo\bar the class, not the function.
<?php
namespace foo;
function bar() {}
class bar {}
var_dump(bar::class); // string(7) "foo\bar"
$b = new bar;
var_dump(get_class($b));
Thanks for your input,
-ralph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
