Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Dynamic class constant fetch]
Hi everyone
Sorry for the late reply.
I won't waste too many lines on usefulness as it is highly subjective.
The change will seem worth it to some people and not to others. IMO
language consistency is important and mainly what I'm striving for.
---
Hi Michał
> Can it be extended to non class constants and additionally deprecations plan
> for constant() function?
I'm not sure what that syntax would look like. {$foo} is not a viable
option since it is ambiguous or rather would require arbitrary
lookahead (i.e. {$foo;} is valid syntax today). A different syntax
would be possible but inconsistent with the existing options. In any
case, this would likely require its own RFC and should be discussed
separately.
---
Hi Nikita
> See
> https://www.npopov.com/2017/04/14/PHP-7-Virtual-machine.html#writes-and-memory-safety
> for why the order of execution is the way it is. As class constants do not
> support writes, these concerns do not apply, and the "normal" order can be
> used (as you propose).
Thank you! I remembered discussing this back when implementing the
nullsafe operator but was fuzzy on the details :) This makes more
sense to me now. I tried to clarify in the RFC.
Ilija
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Dynamic class constant fetch]
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 3:26 PM Ilija Tovilo wrote: > Hi everyone > > I'd like to propose a simple RFC to introduce looking up class > constants by name. We have dedicated syntax for basically all other > language constructs. This RFC aims to get rid of this seemingly > arbitrary limitation. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/dynamic_class_constant_fetch > > Please let me know if you have any thoughts. > The proposal looks reasonable to me. While I wouldn't expect this syntax to see much use, it does remove a syntactical inconsistency in the language. > Order of execution See https://www.npopov.com/2017/04/14/PHP-7-Virtual-machine.html#writes-and-memory-safety for why the order of execution is the way it is. As class constants do not support writes, these concerns do not apply, and the "normal" order can be used (as you propose). Regards, Nikita
Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Dynamic class constant fetch]
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 10:49 AM Marco Pivetta wrote:
> What's convenient about `Foo::{$bar}` vs `constant(Foo::class . '::' .
> $bar)`? I'm a bit confused by this :|
>From the static analysis POV `Foo::{$bar}` is way better, as we can immediately
see that the code is trying to access a constant of a specific class,
and we can,
e.g., flag those operations that did not validate that `$bar` actually exists
as a Foo constant.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Dynamic class constant fetch]
Hi Ilija, pt., 4 lis 2022, 15:26 użytkownik Ilija Tovilo napisał: > Hi everyone > > I'd like to propose a simple RFC to introduce looking up class > constants by name. We have dedicated syntax for basically all other > language constructs. This RFC aims to get rid of this seemingly > arbitrary limitation. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/dynamic_class_constant_fetch Can it be extended to non class constants and additionally deprecations plan for constant() function? I know it may not be the easiest but if we are about completeness and consistency I think coins the cleanup with planned standard library function removal would be complete. Cheers, Michał Marcin Brzuchalski
Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Dynamic class constant fetch]
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM someniatko wrote:
> > What's convenient about `Foo::{$bar}` vs `constant(Foo::class . '::' .
> > $bar)`? I'm a bit confused by this :|
> >
> > Is it the few keystrokes added?
>
> Even if ignoring syntax / convenience bikeshedding, I find it a really
> valuable addition to the language self-consistency. It's symmetrical
> to the already existing syntax of dynamic property fetch and dynamic
> method calls. One could argue that it's dynamic, too much magic and
> bad, but then we should either deprecate those features, or if not,
> have this symmetry. The Principle of Least Amusement and human pattern
> recognition overall with thank you.
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
I agree with @someniatko, it makes PHP more consistent, which IMHO
is always positive and one of the usually criticized points (lack of
consistency
throughout parameter order, naming convention etc).
Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Dynamic class constant fetch]
> What's convenient about `Foo::{$bar}` vs `constant(Foo::class . '::' .
> $bar)`? I'm a bit confused by this :|
>
> Is it the few keystrokes added?
Even if ignoring syntax / convenience bikeshedding, I find it a really
valuable addition to the language self-consistency. It's symmetrical
to the already existing syntax of dynamic property fetch and dynamic
method calls. One could argue that it's dynamic, too much magic and
bad, but then we should either deprecate those features, or if not,
have this symmetry. The Principle of Least Amusement and human pattern
recognition overall with thank you.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Dynamic class constant fetch]
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, at 9:45 AM, Ralf Lang wrote:
> Hi Ilija,
>
> Am 04.11.2022 um 15:25 schrieb Ilija Tovilo:
>> Please let me know if you have any thoughts.
>>
>> Ilija
>
> That new way of accessing class constants dynamically does not really
> make things more readable for me. Maybe I just need to get used to it,
> but especially that last example would make my head spin without
> additional comments:
>
> Foo::{test('foo')}::{test('bar')}; Maybe I miss the use case. What kind
> of code would benefit
> from this? Wouldn't just using constant() for dynamically built
> constant
> strings be more legible? Maybe in a separate line? In the past I used a
> lot of flag constants backed by integers. A lot of these use cases have
> become classes/types in their own right since. When do you use these
> constants? Just my thoughts.
Dynamically building strings for syntax is almost never more legible. :-) I
doubt you'd ever double them up the way some of the examples show.
In practice, the single Class::{$const} or Enum::{$name} would be the most
common uses, I predict, and those are way nicer to read than the 3x longer
constant() with string concat.
--Larry Garfield
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Dynamic class constant fetch]
On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 at 15:40, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, at 9:31 AM, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> > Heyo,
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 at 15:26, Ilija Tovilo
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi everyone
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose a simple RFC to introduce looking up class
> >> constants by name. We have dedicated syntax for basically all other
> >> language constructs. This RFC aims to get rid of this seemingly
> >> arbitrary limitation.
> >>
> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/dynamic_class_constant_fetch
> >>
> >> Please let me know if you have any thoughts.
> >>
> >
> > What's the problem with using `constant()` for this?
> >
> > Marco Pivetta
> >
> > https://twitter.com/Ocramius
> >
> > https://ocramius.github.io/
>
> As it says right in the RFC:
>
> // This:
> echo Foo::{$bar};
>
> // is way more convenient than this mess:
> echo constant(Foo::class . '::' . $bar);
>
> This is something people have mentioned a number of times with enums and
> dynamic case references, and seems like a good small cleanup.
>
What's convenient about `Foo::{$bar}` vs `constant(Foo::class . '::' .
$bar)`? I'm a bit confused by this :|
Is it the few keystrokes added?
Marco Pivetta
https://twitter.com/Ocramius
https://ocramius.github.io/
Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Dynamic class constant fetch]
Hi Ilija,
Am 04.11.2022 um 15:25 schrieb Ilija Tovilo:
Please let me know if you have any thoughts.
Ilija
That new way of accessing class constants dynamically does not really
make things more readable for me. Maybe I just need to get used to it,
but especially that last example would make my head spin without
additional comments:
Foo::{test('foo')}::{test('bar')}; Maybe I miss the use case. What kind of code would benefit
from this? Wouldn't just using constant() for dynamically built constant
strings be more legible? Maybe in a separate line? In the past I used a
lot of flag constants backed by integers. A lot of these use cases have
become classes/types in their own right since. When do you use these
constants? Just my thoughts.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Dynamic class constant fetch]
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, at 9:31 AM, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> Heyo,
>
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 at 15:26, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone
>>
>> I'd like to propose a simple RFC to introduce looking up class
>> constants by name. We have dedicated syntax for basically all other
>> language constructs. This RFC aims to get rid of this seemingly
>> arbitrary limitation.
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/dynamic_class_constant_fetch
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any thoughts.
>>
>
> What's the problem with using `constant()` for this?
>
> Marco Pivetta
>
> https://twitter.com/Ocramius
>
> https://ocramius.github.io/
As it says right in the RFC:
// This:
echo Foo::{$bar};
// is way more convenient than this mess:
echo constant(Foo::class . '::' . $bar);
This is something people have mentioned a number of times with enums and
dynamic case references, and seems like a good small cleanup.
--Larry Garfield
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Dynamic class constant fetch]
Heyo, On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 at 15:26, Ilija Tovilo wrote: > Hi everyone > > I'd like to propose a simple RFC to introduce looking up class > constants by name. We have dedicated syntax for basically all other > language constructs. This RFC aims to get rid of this seemingly > arbitrary limitation. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/dynamic_class_constant_fetch > > Please let me know if you have any thoughts. > What's the problem with using `constant()` for this? Marco Pivetta https://twitter.com/Ocramius https://ocramius.github.io/
