> On Sep 8, 2021, at 4:59 PM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
>> I assume we would also disallow dynamic properties in anonymous classes too,
>> right? After all, they are just statically declared classes that the
>> developer do not assign a name.
>
> The difference I see is that stdClass/DynamicObject
On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 23:00, Rowan Tommins wrote:
>
> On 08/09/2021 16:37, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> > All future code that needs to refer to the class name will still refer to
> > `stdClass`, so we won't be gaining much by creating an alias.
>
>
> Just to be clear, the only code that would need
On 08/09/2021 16:37, Mike Schinkel wrote:
All future code that needs to refer to the class name will still refer to
`stdClass`, so we won't be gaining much by creating an alias.
Just to be clear, the only code that would need to change is code that
dynamically gets *out* the class name,
Wow!
I notice that ArrayObject already does everything we would need for
json_encode().
assert(json_encode(new ArrayObject([5])) === '{"0":5}');
However, it does so in a very strange way, not using any of the public
methods, but also not using dynamic properties.
It seems there is a hard-coded
On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 18:33, Lynn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:38 PM Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> > A couple more things; add a `JSON_OUTPUT_DYNAMIC_OBJECT` flag to output to
> > DynamicObject for `json_decode()`, add a 3rd parameter for flags to
> > var_export() for the same reason, a
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 5:28 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
> What do people think about adding such an alias? Is this worthwhile?
>
What if `DynamicObject` becomes an interface instead of an alias? In the
future `stdClass` could be deprecated and replaced by anonymous classes
using the `DynamicObject`
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:38 PM Mike Schinkel wrote:
> A couple more things; add a `JSON_OUTPUT_DYNAMIC_OBJECT` flag to output to
> DynamicObject for `json_decode()`, add a 3rd parameter for flags to
> var_export() for the same reason, a `'return_dynamic_object'` option for
> `unserialize()`,
> On Sep 8, 2021, at 5:44 AM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
>> Is it just a special-cases that will cause as much confusion for developers
>> trying to understand why there are too names for the same thing as it will
>> help those who will better understand the new name
>
> That is certainly a risk,
On 08/09/2021 11:08, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
I'm reading the discussion about the side of the alias. Can't we solve
these concerns by making DynamicObject extend stdClass instead of
aliasing? That wouldn't allow an stdClass object to get through the
DynamicObject typehint, but that shouldn't be
> In the thread for deprecation of dynamic properties, Rowan suggested that
> we alias "stdClass" to "DynamicObject" in
> https://externals.io/message/115800#115802. I wanted to split this
> discussion off into a separate thread, as this can be decided
> independently.
>
> The rationale for this
On 08/09/2021 09:45, Mike Schinkel wrote:
So I am trying to get around what this would actually mean in practice, and
what the ramifications would be.
The proposal is that the new name is an "alias" - the same class, but
with two names. So the following would all create exactly the same
> On Sep 6, 2021, at 11:28 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> Hi internals,
>
> In the thread for deprecation of dynamic properties, Rowan suggested that
> we alias "stdClass" to "DynamicObject" in
> https://externals.io/message/115800#115802. I wanted to split this
> discussion off into a separate
On 07/09/2021 17:15, Marc Bennewitz wrote:
* It's a class -> Why do we suffix it with "Object"?
Classes are generally named to make sense when you have an instance: a
class called "HttpRequest" is not saying that the *class* is a request,
but that every *instance* is one, as in "$myRequest
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 9:29 AM Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> Hi internals,
>
> In the thread for deprecation of dynamic properties, Rowan suggested that
> we alias "stdClass" to "DynamicObject" in
> https://externals.io/message/115800#115802. I wanted to split this
> discussion off into a separate
Hi Marc,
The name seems to be ok IMHO. Even though it is a class, the main use case
is to denote an object that was created dynamically rather than through an
instantiation of a class. And I know that a lot of usage comes from people
directly creating new instances of stdClass but if you do that
On 06.09.21 17:28, Nikita Popov wrote:
Hi internals,
In the thread for deprecation of dynamic properties, Rowan suggested that
we alias "stdClass" to "DynamicObject" in
https://externals.io/message/115800#115802. I wanted to split this
discussion off into a separate thread, as this can be
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021, at 4:22 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 6:50 PM Kamil Tekiela wrote:
>
> > Hi Nikita,
> >
> > I think this might be a good idea, but I would like to propose yet another
> > variant.
> > Replace stdClass with DynamicObject and keep stdClass as an alias. It
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 6:50 PM Kamil Tekiela wrote:
> Hi Nikita,
>
> I think this might be a good idea, but I would like to propose yet another
> variant.
> Replace stdClass with DynamicObject and keep stdClass as an alias. It can
> be deprecated in 8.3.
> If we only add an alias, I am afraid
On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 01:12, Aran Reeks wrote:
> ... Too much code depends on an expected type of stdClass
> presently which would likely make future upgrades more difficult for no
> functional gain, beyond some added clarify.
What if we had the DynamicObject as a subclass of stdClass?
It
Creating a new DynamicObject class which is the preferred alias for
stdClass sounds logical but I too share the consern around making it the
default anytime soon. Too much code depends on an expected type of stdClass
presently which would likely make future upgrades more difficult for no
Den 2021-09-06 kl. 18:22, skrev Christian Schneider:
Am 06.09.2021 um 18:08 schrieb Benjamin Morel :
Yes, please! A future where dynamic properties are only allowed on
DynamicObject is bright.
I have nothing against a DynamicObject alias for people who like to be more
explicit in their
> On Sep 6, 2021, at 11:29 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
I think this would be a massive benefit to first-time PHP users one or two
years from now.
I remember being confused by this terminology — I am sure bugs have been caused
by people who assumed stdClass was a base class for all objects.
Hi Nikita,
I think this might be a good idea, but I would like to propose yet another
variant.
Replace stdClass with DynamicObject and keep stdClass as an alias. It can
be deprecated in 8.3.
If we only add an alias, I am afraid that it will not catch on quickly
enough. What I am proposing is that
Am 06.09.2021 um 18:08 schrieb Benjamin Morel :
> Yes, please! A future where dynamic properties are only allowed on
> DynamicObject is bright.
I have nothing against a DynamicObject alias for people who like to be more
explicit in their code...
> I would even deprecate the stdClass alias
Hi Nikita, Rowan,
In the thread for deprecation of dynamic properties, Rowan suggested that
> we alias "stdClass" to "DynamicObject" in
> https://externals.io/message/115800#115802. I wanted to split this
> discussion off into a separate thread, as this can be decided
> independently.
>
> The
25 matches
Mail list logo
