Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: about class names as values
Hi all,
I don't know how the internal development process of PHP works.
First at all: was this feature approved?
if that is a yes...
is this feature going to be scheduled for some release?
Is it supposed that I will submit a patch?
Thanks you all,
Martin Scotta
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Martin Vium mar...@sitevision.dk wrote:
I think adding a magic constant or method for getting the class name would
be usefull in many scenarios, when referencing a specific class (e.g.
factories, configurations). It would also work well with namespaces and
refactoring tools e.g.:
$mock = $this-getMock('\\My\\Custom\\Namespace\\MyClass');
vs.
use My\Custom\Namespace\MyClass;
$mock = $this-getMock(MyClass::CLASS);
On 8 January 2011 11:21, Ben Schmidt mail_ben_schm...@yahoo.com.au
wrote:
I think doing something like this is a good idea for classes and
interfaces.
Ben.
On 7/01/11 1:16 AM, Martin Scotta wrote:
Yes, my intention was to only add a magic constant with the class,
similar
to this
namespace Bar {
class Foo {
const KLASS = __CLASS__;
}
}
namespace Buzz {
use \Bar\Foo as BazFoo;
class Bar extends BazFoo {
const KLASS = __CLASS__;
}
$bar = new Bar;
$baz = new BazFoo;
var_dump( get_class($baz), BazFoo::KLASS);
var_dump( get_class($bar), Bar::KLASS );
}
This is 100% valid PHP 5.3.3 code, but that includes a lot of effort
from
the developer. Someone miss to include the KLASS constant on a class and
the
result is undefined.
If that PHP could add a magic constant --named CLASS or whatever you
like--
to each class it will reduce the amount of class names hardcoded onto
strings, probably to zero.
The only issue that I found today is related to interfaces. I'm not sure
if
they should include this sort of magic constant, but I would rather
include
them just for consistency but, as I previously said, I'm not sure about
this
one.
Martin Scotta
2011/1/5 John LeSueurjohn.lesu...@gmail.com
2011/1/5 Johannes Schlüterjohan...@php.net
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:53 -0300, Martin Scotta wrote:
$obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass
This describes the major change with your idea.
What happens if a constant MyClass exists?
Another question is something like this:
?php
function factory($class) {
return new $class();
}
factory( SomeClass );
?
To proper support this we'd have to make classes first class elements.
For making this consistent it would make sense to make functions first
class elements. And best drop the $ in front of variables and create a
new language. Everything else becomes a mess.
johannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I think he's actually proposing creating for each class the magic
class
constant CLASS, so your example becomes:
?php
function factory($class) {
return new $class();
}
factory( SomeClass::CLASS );
?
This is actually doable without a magic class constant, but requires a
function or class constant to be declared in each class.
?php
class SomeClass {
const CLASS = __NAMESPACE__ . '\' . __CLASS__;
static function getNameWithNSPath()
{
return __NAMESPACE__ . '\' . __CLASS__;
}
}
factory( SomeClass::getNameWithNSPath() );
?
Perhaps this could be simplified with traits, if __NAMESPACE__ and
__CLASS__ work in traits that way. In fact, that's an interesting
question,
what is __NAMESPACE__ in a trait defined in one namespace, then used in
a
class in a different namespace?
I think the point is that the factory function could exist without any
knowledge of the namespaces of the classes it would work on. Then,
somewhere
else where the class has been aliased or is otherwise accessible
without
the
full namespace path, the developer wouldn't need to specify the full
namespace path to the factory, but could ask the class itself what it's
full
namespace path was. I don't know that I agree with the idea, but I
don't
think it requires making classes first class elements.
John
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
Mvh
Martin Vium
Senior System Arkitekt
Sitevision
Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: about class names as values
Take this with a grain of salt, but: On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Martin Scotta martinsco...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I don't know how the internal development process of PHP works. First at all: was this feature approved? From my experience, don't consider something approved until it's in SVN, and even then maybe not (e.g. type hinting...), regardless of how many people say I think that sounds like a good idea. if that is a yes... is this feature going to be scheduled for some release? See below. Is it supposed that I will submit a patch? Mostly, the burden is on the person requesting a feature to submit a patch, if for no other reason than that everyone is busy and that, as the requester, you probably have the most interest in getting the feature implemented. Once a patch is out there, you're going to need to convince at least one core dev to get behind your idea, since they are in the position of getting it into SVN, and they have the best big picture view of PHP. The core devs do often seem happy to help improve patches, if they think they're worthwhile. Then, perhaps it will get into SVN if a core dev likes it and no core devs oppose it too much. Then, perhaps it will be scheduled for a release. Thanks you all, Martin Scotta -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: about class names as values
I think adding a magic constant or method for getting the class name would
be usefull in many scenarios, when referencing a specific class (e.g.
factories, configurations). It would also work well with namespaces and
refactoring tools e.g.:
$mock = $this-getMock('\\My\\Custom\\Namespace\\MyClass');
vs.
use My\Custom\Namespace\MyClass;
$mock = $this-getMock(MyClass::CLASS);
On 8 January 2011 11:21, Ben Schmidt mail_ben_schm...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
I think doing something like this is a good idea for classes and
interfaces.
Ben.
On 7/01/11 1:16 AM, Martin Scotta wrote:
Yes, my intention was to only add a magic constant with the class, similar
to this
namespace Bar {
class Foo {
const KLASS = __CLASS__;
}
}
namespace Buzz {
use \Bar\Foo as BazFoo;
class Bar extends BazFoo {
const KLASS = __CLASS__;
}
$bar = new Bar;
$baz = new BazFoo;
var_dump( get_class($baz), BazFoo::KLASS);
var_dump( get_class($bar), Bar::KLASS );
}
This is 100% valid PHP 5.3.3 code, but that includes a lot of effort from
the developer. Someone miss to include the KLASS constant on a class and
the
result is undefined.
If that PHP could add a magic constant --named CLASS or whatever you
like--
to each class it will reduce the amount of class names hardcoded onto
strings, probably to zero.
The only issue that I found today is related to interfaces. I'm not sure
if
they should include this sort of magic constant, but I would rather
include
them just for consistency but, as I previously said, I'm not sure about
this
one.
Martin Scotta
2011/1/5 John LeSueurjohn.lesu...@gmail.com
2011/1/5 Johannes Schlüterjohan...@php.net
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:53 -0300, Martin Scotta wrote:
$obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass
This describes the major change with your idea.
What happens if a constant MyClass exists?
Another question is something like this:
?php
function factory($class) {
return new $class();
}
factory( SomeClass );
?
To proper support this we'd have to make classes first class elements.
For making this consistent it would make sense to make functions first
class elements. And best drop the $ in front of variables and create a
new language. Everything else becomes a mess.
johannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I think he's actually proposing creating for each class the magic class
constant CLASS, so your example becomes:
?php
function factory($class) {
return new $class();
}
factory( SomeClass::CLASS );
?
This is actually doable without a magic class constant, but requires a
function or class constant to be declared in each class.
?php
class SomeClass {
const CLASS = __NAMESPACE__ . '\' . __CLASS__;
static function getNameWithNSPath()
{
return __NAMESPACE__ . '\' . __CLASS__;
}
}
factory( SomeClass::getNameWithNSPath() );
?
Perhaps this could be simplified with traits, if __NAMESPACE__ and
__CLASS__ work in traits that way. In fact, that's an interesting
question,
what is __NAMESPACE__ in a trait defined in one namespace, then used in a
class in a different namespace?
I think the point is that the factory function could exist without any
knowledge of the namespaces of the classes it would work on. Then,
somewhere
else where the class has been aliased or is otherwise accessible without
the
full namespace path, the developer wouldn't need to specify the full
namespace path to the factory, but could ask the class itself what it's
full
namespace path was. I don't know that I agree with the idea, but I don't
think it requires making classes first class elements.
John
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
Mvh
Martin Vium
Senior System Arkitekt
Sitevision
Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: about class names as values
I think doing something like this is a good idea for classes and
interfaces.
Ben.
On 7/01/11 1:16 AM, Martin Scotta wrote:
Yes, my intention was to only add a magic constant with the class, similar
to this
namespace Bar {
class Foo {
const KLASS = __CLASS__;
}
}
namespace Buzz {
use \Bar\Foo as BazFoo;
class Bar extends BazFoo {
const KLASS = __CLASS__;
}
$bar = new Bar;
$baz = new BazFoo;
var_dump( get_class($baz), BazFoo::KLASS);
var_dump( get_class($bar), Bar::KLASS );
}
This is 100% valid PHP 5.3.3 code, but that includes a lot of effort from
the developer. Someone miss to include the KLASS constant on a class and the
result is undefined.
If that PHP could add a magic constant --named CLASS or whatever you like--
to each class it will reduce the amount of class names hardcoded onto
strings, probably to zero.
The only issue that I found today is related to interfaces. I'm not sure if
they should include this sort of magic constant, but I would rather include
them just for consistency but, as I previously said, I'm not sure about this
one.
Martin Scotta
2011/1/5 John LeSueurjohn.lesu...@gmail.com
2011/1/5 Johannes Schlüterjohan...@php.net
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:53 -0300, Martin Scotta wrote:
$obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass
This describes the major change with your idea.
What happens if a constant MyClass exists?
Another question is something like this:
?php
function factory($class) {
return new $class();
}
factory( SomeClass );
?
To proper support this we'd have to make classes first class elements.
For making this consistent it would make sense to make functions first
class elements. And best drop the $ in front of variables and create a
new language. Everything else becomes a mess.
johannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I think he's actually proposing creating for each class the magic class
constant CLASS, so your example becomes:
?php
function factory($class) {
return new $class();
}
factory( SomeClass::CLASS );
?
This is actually doable without a magic class constant, but requires a
function or class constant to be declared in each class.
?php
class SomeClass {
const CLASS = __NAMESPACE__ . '\' . __CLASS__;
static function getNameWithNSPath()
{
return __NAMESPACE__ . '\' . __CLASS__;
}
}
factory( SomeClass::getNameWithNSPath() );
?
Perhaps this could be simplified with traits, if __NAMESPACE__ and
__CLASS__ work in traits that way. In fact, that's an interesting question,
what is __NAMESPACE__ in a trait defined in one namespace, then used in a
class in a different namespace?
I think the point is that the factory function could exist without any
knowledge of the namespaces of the classes it would work on. Then, somewhere
else where the class has been aliased or is otherwise accessible without the
full namespace path, the developer wouldn't need to specify the full
namespace path to the factory, but could ask the class itself what it's full
namespace path was. I don't know that I agree with the idea, but I don't
think it requires making classes first class elements.
John
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: about class names as values
Hi,
To proper support this we'd have to make classes first class elements.
For making this consistent it would make sense to make functions first
class elements. And best drop the $ in front of variables and create a
new language. Everything else becomes a mess.
Closures are first-class citizens and it seems natural that they are so.
Perhaps we should rethink what consistency means for PHP. I don't see any
good reason why first-class objects could be evil, except that the $ could
indeed be a problem.
Regards,
Adrian
2011/1/6 Johannes Schlüter johan...@php.net
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:53 -0300, Martin Scotta wrote:
$obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass
This describes the major change with your idea.
What happens if a constant MyClass exists?
Another question is something like this:
?php
function factory($class) {
return new $class();
}
factory( SomeClass );
?
To proper support this we'd have to make classes first class elements.
For making this consistent it would make sense to make functions first
class elements. And best drop the $ in front of variables and create a
new language. Everything else becomes a mess.
johannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: about class names as values
Hi all,
I've wrote a simple snippet to show the importance of this feature.
This little piece of code, at a glance, tries to instantiate 2 same objects
by different ways, but fails because of a silently code bug.
-- start of code
?php
namespace B\C {
class Foo {
function test() {
echo __CLASS__, PHP_EOL;
}
}
}
namespace A\B\C {
class Foo {
function test() {
echo __CLASS__, PHP_EOL;
}
}
}
namespace A {
$f1 = new B\C\Foo;
$f1-test();
$class = 'B\C\Foo';
$f2 = new $class;
$f2-test();
}
?
--- end of code
This works this way because class names in strings are treated as fully
qualified class names.
Although this script was created to reproduce an programmer error it helps
to show the need for a safe way to pass class name as a values.
As a side note, '\A\B\C\Foo' refers to the same class that 'A\B\C\Foo', but
the string comparison will return false
Regards,
Martin Scotta
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Michael Morris dmgx.mich...@gmail.comwrote:
+1 to this. In a similar vein (and similar reasons) consider ::PARENT as
well. Since parent is also a reserved word here too is a case where no code
in existence will be in conflict. So
class Foo {}
class Bar extends Foo{}
echo Bar::PARENT; // Foo
2011/1/6 Martin Scotta martinsco...@gmail.com
Yes, my intention was to only add a magic constant with the class, similar
to this
namespace Bar {
class Foo {
const KLASS = __CLASS__;
}
}
namespace Buzz {
use \Bar\Foo as BazFoo;
class Bar extends BazFoo {
const KLASS = __CLASS__;
}
$bar = new Bar;
$baz = new BazFoo;
var_dump( get_class($baz), BazFoo::KLASS);
var_dump( get_class($bar), Bar::KLASS );
}
This is 100% valid PHP 5.3.3 code, but that includes a lot of effort from
the developer. Someone miss to include the KLASS constant on a class and
the
result is undefined.
If that PHP could add a magic constant --named CLASS or whatever you
like--
to each class it will reduce the amount of class names hardcoded onto
strings, probably to zero.
The only issue that I found today is related to interfaces. I'm not sure
if
they should include this sort of magic constant, but I would rather
include
them just for consistency but, as I previously said, I'm not sure about
this
one.
Martin Scotta
2011/1/5 John LeSueur john.lesu...@gmail.com
2011/1/5 Johannes Schlüter johan...@php.net
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:53 -0300, Martin Scotta wrote:
$obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass
This describes the major change with your idea.
What happens if a constant MyClass exists?
Another question is something like this:
?php
function factory($class) {
return new $class();
}
factory( SomeClass );
?
To proper support this we'd have to make classes first class elements.
For making this consistent it would make sense to make functions first
class elements. And best drop the $ in front of variables and create a
new language. Everything else becomes a mess.
johannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I think he's actually proposing creating for each class the magic class
constant CLASS, so your example becomes:
?php
function factory($class) {
return new $class();
}
factory( SomeClass::CLASS );
?
This is actually doable without a magic class constant, but requires a
function or class constant to be declared in each class.
?php
class SomeClass {
const CLASS = __NAMESPACE__ . '\' . __CLASS__;
static function getNameWithNSPath()
{
return __NAMESPACE__ . '\' . __CLASS__;
}
}
factory( SomeClass::getNameWithNSPath() );
?
Perhaps this could be simplified with traits, if __NAMESPACE__ and
__CLASS__ work in traits that way. In fact, that's an interesting
question,
what is __NAMESPACE__ in a trait defined in one namespace, then used in
a
class in a different namespace?
I think the point is that the factory function could exist without any
knowledge of the namespaces of the classes it would work on. Then,
somewhere
else where the class has been aliased or is otherwise accessible without
the
full namespace path, the developer wouldn't need to specify the full
namespace path to the factory, but could ask the class itself what it's
full
namespace path was. I don't know that I agree with the idea, but I don't
think it requires making classes first class elements.
John
Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: about class names as values
Yes, my intention was to only add a magic constant with the class, similar
to this
namespace Bar {
class Foo {
const KLASS = __CLASS__;
}
}
namespace Buzz {
use \Bar\Foo as BazFoo;
class Bar extends BazFoo {
const KLASS = __CLASS__;
}
$bar = new Bar;
$baz = new BazFoo;
var_dump( get_class($baz), BazFoo::KLASS);
var_dump( get_class($bar), Bar::KLASS );
}
This is 100% valid PHP 5.3.3 code, but that includes a lot of effort from
the developer. Someone miss to include the KLASS constant on a class and the
result is undefined.
If that PHP could add a magic constant --named CLASS or whatever you like--
to each class it will reduce the amount of class names hardcoded onto
strings, probably to zero.
The only issue that I found today is related to interfaces. I'm not sure if
they should include this sort of magic constant, but I would rather include
them just for consistency but, as I previously said, I'm not sure about this
one.
Martin Scotta
2011/1/5 John LeSueur john.lesu...@gmail.com
2011/1/5 Johannes Schlüter johan...@php.net
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:53 -0300, Martin Scotta wrote:
$obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass
This describes the major change with your idea.
What happens if a constant MyClass exists?
Another question is something like this:
?php
function factory($class) {
return new $class();
}
factory( SomeClass );
?
To proper support this we'd have to make classes first class elements.
For making this consistent it would make sense to make functions first
class elements. And best drop the $ in front of variables and create a
new language. Everything else becomes a mess.
johannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I think he's actually proposing creating for each class the magic class
constant CLASS, so your example becomes:
?php
function factory($class) {
return new $class();
}
factory( SomeClass::CLASS );
?
This is actually doable without a magic class constant, but requires a
function or class constant to be declared in each class.
?php
class SomeClass {
const CLASS = __NAMESPACE__ . '\' . __CLASS__;
static function getNameWithNSPath()
{
return __NAMESPACE__ . '\' . __CLASS__;
}
}
factory( SomeClass::getNameWithNSPath() );
?
Perhaps this could be simplified with traits, if __NAMESPACE__ and
__CLASS__ work in traits that way. In fact, that's an interesting question,
what is __NAMESPACE__ in a trait defined in one namespace, then used in a
class in a different namespace?
I think the point is that the factory function could exist without any
knowledge of the namespaces of the classes it would work on. Then, somewhere
else where the class has been aliased or is otherwise accessible without the
full namespace path, the developer wouldn't need to specify the full
namespace path to the factory, but could ask the class itself what it's full
namespace path was. I don't know that I agree with the idea, but I don't
think it requires making classes first class elements.
John
Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: about class names as values
2011/1/5 Johannes Schlüter johan...@php.net
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:53 -0300, Martin Scotta wrote:
$obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass
This describes the major change with your idea.
What happens if a constant MyClass exists?
Another question is something like this:
?php
function factory($class) {
return new $class();
}
factory( SomeClass );
?
To proper support this we'd have to make classes first class elements.
For making this consistent it would make sense to make functions first
class elements. And best drop the $ in front of variables and create a
new language. Everything else becomes a mess.
johannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I think he's actually proposing creating for each class the magic class
constant CLASS, so your example becomes:
?php
function factory($class) {
return new $class();
}
factory( SomeClass::CLASS );
?
This is actually doable without a magic class constant, but requires a
function or class constant to be declared in each class.
?php
class SomeClass {
const CLASS = __NAMESPACE__ . '\' . __CLASS__;
static function getNameWithNSPath()
{
return __NAMESPACE__ . '\' . __CLASS__;
}
}
factory( SomeClass::getNameWithNSPath() );
?
Perhaps this could be simplified with traits, if __NAMESPACE__ and __CLASS__
work in traits that way. In fact, that's an interesting question, what is
__NAMESPACE__ in a trait defined in one namespace, then used in a class in a
different namespace?
I think the point is that the factory function could exist without any
knowledge of the namespaces of the classes it would work on. Then, somewhere
else where the class has been aliased or is otherwise accessible without the
full namespace path, the developer wouldn't need to specify the full
namespace path to the factory, but could ask the class itself what it's full
namespace path was. I don't know that I agree with the idea, but I don't
think it requires making classes first class elements.
John
