> What value?
Yes, shorter, more concise (from the programmers perspective) syntax.
Right now, if you do a lot of work with Closures, you have to verify their
interface, the value in having the engine do it for you seems really
obvious.
But also ...
> I thought the same might be implemented through anonymous classes.
An anonymous class cannot be rebound, they are obviously not the same thing.
> I didn't take a deep look into the code.
I'll wait until you have, I think :)
Cheers
Joe
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 04/19/2016 03:52 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>
> Oh, it's confusing text in the RFC, using the word "Interface" ... that's
> meant as a placeholder for InterfaceName.
>
> Cheers
> Joe
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Morning Dmitry,
>>
>> In your example, they will do the same thing.
>>
>> Anon classes don't have lexical scope, I have a patch for that, and an
>> RFC, I'm just tidying it.
>>
>
> OK. so this is not just a syntax sugar, but if you implement lexical scope
> for anonymous classes it's going to be sugar. Right?
> May be it's better to start from classes first?
>
>
>> Even when anon classes do have lexical scope, there is value in being
>> able to implement these kinds of interfaces using only a function.
>>
>
> What value? just shorter syntax? or anything else?
>
>
>> The changes to the vm are restricted to a few lines, that's not
>> seriously a problem, is it !?
>>
>
> I hope no. I didn't understand all details of proposal and I didn't take a
> deep look into the code.
>
>
>> I don't see where I extend closure with an interface ...
>>
>
> I meant new field zend_execute_data *interface in zend_closure structure.
> I thought the same might be implemented through anonymous classes.
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
>
>
>> > zend_do_inheritance_ex(type, zend_ce_closure, 1);
>> > zend_class_implements(type, 1, interface);
>>
>> Cheers
>> Joe
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Dmitry Stogov < <dmi...@zend.com>
>> dmi...@zend.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <?php
>>> interface IFoo {
>>> public function method() : int;
>>> }
>>>
>>> $cb1 = function () implements IFoo : int {
>>> return 42;
>>> };
>>>
>>> $cb2 = new class implements IFoo {
>>> function method() : int {
>>> return 42;
>>> }
>>> };
>>> ?>
>>>
>>> Are $cb1 and $cb2 going to be the same (do the same)?
>>> Is this just a new syntax sugar, or a really new feature?
>>>
>>> According to implementation, I think, you shouldn't extend
>>> "zend_closure" with "interface".
>>> If this is a sugar, lets implement it as a sugar (without VM changes).
>>>
>>> But may be I didn't understand the idea at all :)
>>>
>>> Thanks. Dmitry.
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 13:22
>>> To: PHP internals
>>> Subject: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Functional Interfaces
>>>
>>> Morning Internals,
>>>
>>> Please review the following RFC:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/functional-interfaces
>>>
>>> An implementation is provided, and is testable on 3v4l.
>>>
>>> Review of the implementation from those of you that do that would be
>>> good :)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Joe
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
