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 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
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 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 > 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 LeSueur > >> > >> > >>> > >>> 2011/1/5 Johannes Schlüter > >>> > >>> On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:53 -0300, Martin Scotta wrote: > > > $obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass > > > > This describes the major change with your idea. > > What happens if a constant MyClass exists? > > Another question is something like this: > > function factory($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: > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> > >>> 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. > >>> > >>> >>> 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 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 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 LeSueur >> >> >>> >>> 2011/1/5 Johannes Schlüter >>> >>> On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:53 -0300, Martin Scotta wrote: > $obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass > This describes the major change with your idea. What happens if a constant MyClass exists? Another question is something like this: >>> function factory($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: >>> >>> >>> >> >>> 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. >>> >>> >> 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 LeSueur 2011/1/5 Johannes Schlüter 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: 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: This is actually doable without a magic class constant, but requires a function or class constant to be declared in each class. 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 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 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 wrote: > +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 > > 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 >> >> > >> > >> > 2011/1/5 Johannes Schlüter >> > >> >> On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:53 -0300, Martin Scotta wrote: >> >> > $obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass >> >> >> >> This describes the major change with your idea. >> >> >> >> What happens if a constant MyClass exists? >> >> >> >> Another question is something like this: >> >> >> >> > >> function factory($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: >> > >> > >> > > > >> > 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. >> > >> > > > 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
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 > On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:53 -0300, Martin Scotta wrote: > > $obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass > > This describes the major change with your idea. > > What happens if a constant MyClass exists? > > Another question is something like this: > > function factory($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
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 > > > 2011/1/5 Johannes Schlüter > >> On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:53 -0300, Martin Scotta wrote: >> > $obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass >> >> This describes the major change with your idea. >> >> What happens if a constant MyClass exists? >> >> Another question is something like this: >> >> > function factory($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: > > > > 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. > > 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 > On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:53 -0300, Martin Scotta wrote: > > $obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass > > This describes the major change with your idea. > > What happens if a constant MyClass exists? > > Another question is something like this: > > function factory($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: This is actually doable without a magic class constant, but requires a function or class constant to be declared in each class. 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
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: 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
[PHP-DEV] RFC: about class names as values
Hi all, RFC: about class names as values PHP uses class names as values, but only in a couple of places. String constanst after the "new" or "instanceof" operator --correct me if I'm missing others-- are treated as class names. if( $obj instanceof MyClass ) { // $obj is instanceof Bar/Foo/MyClass } but what happen if the class name is used on other places? function newInstance($class) { return new $class; } $obj = newInstance( MyClass ); // notice. undefined constant MyClass so you have to end up by writting $obj = newInstance( '\Bar\Foo\MyClass' ); which lacks of any semantic, it's not a class name, it's just a string. My idea is that PHP could include a constant on each class, a string with the full qualified class name echo MyClass::CLASS; // \Bar\Foo\MyClass $obj = newInstance( MyClass::CLASS ); As the "CLASS" is currently a reserved word is guarantied that nobody is using as it today. What do you think about? Martin Scotta