I think a big part of your problem is misusing PHP constructs. Why are
you adding a function as a property? Of course the engine sees it as a
method call, you can't even use a callable as the typehint for a
property. If the 'body' function is separate from each instance, why not
make it a static method in the class?
Lanre
On 2023-09-18 1:03 p.m., Shailesh Humbad wrote:
On 9/18/2023 2:40 PM, Dusk wrote:
Surely this can already be accomplished unambiguously using syntax
like `<?= $x() ?>` or `<? ($model->title)() ?>` ?
In any case, this seems like a non-starter, as it would substantially
change the behavior of some existing code, e.g. when echoing objects
which implement both __invoke() and __toString().
Both of the examples do not work because in the use case, the model
property can interchangeably be either a string or a closure depending
on the size of the content. It won't always be a closure.
For example, the controller logic could be written as either:
$model->body = "Hello world";
or
$model->body = function() { readfile("helloworld.txt"); };
This change would break compatibility with code written like "<?= $x
?>", where $x is an object that implements both __invoke and
__toString. I would suspect that such code is extremely rare or
non-existent.
Just FYI, if $model->body is a closure, then this code does not work:
<?= $model->body(); ?>
PHP tries to call the class method named 'body', which is undefined.
However, your example does work:
<?= ($model->body)(); ?>
In any case, my workaround is this:
<?php is_callable($model->body) ? call_user_func($model->body) : echo
$model->body; ?>
It would just be nice to be able to write the view without any
spaghetti code, as simply:
<?= $model->body ?>
Regards,
Shailesh
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
