On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 08:58, Rowan Tommins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 February 2020 23:12:34 GMT+00:00, Manuel Canga < > manuelca...@gmail.com> wrote: > >El mié., 12 feb. 2020 23:01, Rowan Tommins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> > >escribió: > >In your example, you has the same options: > > > >> > >1. Change import > >2. Add namespace: > > > >['Acme\Global\I18N',\translate::function] > > > There is no collision between 'Foo::translate()' and 'translate()', so > there is no reason to change the import. That's true of executing the > functions, so it should remain be true of resolving them to strings. > > There is collision with import which you added. > > > >Explain: > > > >When you do: [ class, method ] or [ $object, method ]. Method has not > >namespace, you write it without namespace( like global functions ) > > > I think this is where we are thinking differently. A method name is not > "like a global function", it's just a name; it doesn't belong in the same > category. > > You might have any number of classes that use the same method name, but > with completely different parameters and purpose, so "a method named foo" > isn't a useful concept outside some specific class or interface. > > On the other hand, you can only have one function with a particular > fully-qualified name, and the proposed feature is a way of referencing that. > > Function as callable is different as regular function. Example: http://sandbox.onlinephpfunctions.com/code/99408213d1ed740f60471646f16f9765d7efa93e namespace MyProject; function my_function() { //.... } my_function(); // it calls to \MyProject\my_function array_map('my_function', [] ); //* * Here, 'my_function' is only a string. Maybe a global function( without namespace ) or maybe a method or other case. With native array_map is a global function. However, you can have a function like this: function array_map( $method, $array) { \Collection::$method( $array ); } In both cases, you could do: array_map(\my_function::function, [] ); > > > >Other example: > > > >$class = \MyClass::class; > >$method = \method::function; > > > >and... > > > >$class = '\MyClass'; > >$method = 'method'; > > > >$obj = new $class(); > >$obj->$method(); > > > >Both are the same, but first is more semantic. > > > This isn't semantic at all - it works only because \method::function > happens to return the string you want, but so does \method::class; neither > is actually labelling it as what it is, which is a method within class > \MyClass. > > Importantly, it might not work at all, if ::function gives an error if > the function doesn't exist. > > ::function only would retrieve string, like as ::class, exists or not. In fach, that code might not work at all due to class. What matter if Class does't exist ?. ::class doesn't produce error. Look: http://sandbox.onlinephpfunctions.com/code/0a8466a00974bc1ffc12b219569ced55753327bd If class doesn't exist, nothing happend. Thank, Rowan. You points of view are very interesting.
