Re: RFC: Anonymous Classes

From: Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:55:20 +0000
Subject: Re: RFC: Anonymous Classes
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message
If you need access to the methods in AProxifier then why does the anonymous
> class extend A, you should extend AProxifier as you would with any other
> class.
>

Because A has the behavior I want to extend?

An other example:

class A {...}
class B {...}

class Factory
{
    protected function protectedMethod() {...}

    function getA()
    {
        return new class extends A {.. call Factory::protectedMethod()? ..};
    }

    function getB()
    {
        return new class extends B {.. call Factory::protectedMethod()? ..};
    }
}

This is possible and welcomed with closures.
I see it as useful for anonymous classes than it is for anonymous functions.
What do others you think about it?


Thread (55 messages)

« previous php.internals (#69379) next »