On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Stas Malyshev <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> May I suggest using foo::__CLASS__ instead of foo::class ? It's longer, but
>> closer to what already exists for this semantic (class name as string),
>> don't you think ?
>
> I like this. __CLASS__ is already being used as class name, and little
> chance of colliding with some code since you're not supposed to be using
> __ prefix in your names.
From the collisions point of view class and __CLASS__ are equally
safe. They both are lexer keywords, so it's not possible to declare
constants with them as name.
Imho ClassName::class reads nicer and also looks similar to the
similar ClassName.class syntax in Java.
Nikita