Re: [RFC][DISCUSSION] ReflectionParameter::getClassName()
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Andrea Faulds <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 1 Feb 2015, at 01:23, Dan Ackroyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 31 January 2015 at 17:31, Philip Sturgeon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Matteo Beccati <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2) There's a tiny bit of overlap with "scalar type hints",
>>>
>>> 2) There might be some overlap in the scalar type hint stuff kinda,
>>> but I'd like to think there isn't. getClassName() is just
>>> getClass()->name
>>
>>
>> I think Matteo's point is that if any scalar type RFC passes, a
>> type-hint for a parameter would not always be the name of a class, so
>> the method name 'getClassName()' would be misleading.
>>
>> It would be good to choose a better name to avoid that problem.
>
> We already have that problem (array, callable).
>
> I think the more important issue is the conflict with the ReflectionTypeAnnotation RFC, which
> proposes something similar to what was originally part of the Return Types RFC:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reflectionparameter.typehint
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
>
>
>
>
Hey, missed a few replies.
1. There is no conflict with scalar types at all. The class name is
not a scalar type :) We already have getClass(), this is just getting
the name of that class without loading it.
> a type-hint for a parameter would not always be the name of a class, so
the method name 'getClassName()' would be misleading.
This wont be a problem Dan. getClass() wouldn't work if you call it on
a foo(string $bar), and this will fall over too. The test and RFC
both show that.
So, are we good to vote?
Thread (10 messages)