Re: RFC: Anonymous Classes

From: Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:30:09 +0000
Subject: Re: RFC: Anonymous Classes
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message
On 27 September 2013 09:55, Nicolas Grekas <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?

-1

Just because a closure is an anonymous function does not mean that an
anonymous class has closure capabilites.

-- 
Regards,
Mike


Thread (55 messages)

« previous php.internals (#69381) next »