Hey Rob,
On 14.3.2025 00:26:03, Rob Landers wrote:
My biggest issue with `::` is that it gets weird:
class Foo {
public class Bar {}
public const Bar = "";
public static function Bar() {}
}
echo Foo::Bar; // this is the constant
new Foo::Bar(); // this is the class
Foo::Bar(); // this is the method
new (Foo::Bar()); // this is the method
new (Foo::Bar); // this is constant
I can now differentiate between these all in the AST, but it seems
weird to me. If we go this route, I'd personally have the preference
to allow them all and let people's code-style dictate what is
acceptable or not -- assuming I can ensure there is no ambiguity in
the grammar. At least with `:>` (or something else) we don't have to
even have that discussion. :)
Why would that be weird?
In 99% of the cases new followed by something followed by double colons
followed by something else is just the inner class.
Writing new (Foo::Bar) or new (Foo::Bar()) already today looks
suspicious and will remain looking suspicious. Nothing will change about
that. And "Foo::Bar" (or "Foo::Bar()") without being preceded by "new"
or followed by "::" is just the normal class constant.
On top of that, there are naming conventions in PHP which will make it
even more obvious: class constants in uppercase and methods in camelCase
and class names in PascalCase. So, just looking at Foo::Bar (without
considering any surrounding tokens), you expect a class name. Looking at
Foo::BAR, you expect a constant. Looking at Foo::bar you expect a method.
echo Foo::BAR; // this is the constant
new Foo::Bar(); // this is the class
Foo::bar(); // this is the method
new (Foo::bar()); // this is the method
new (Foo::BAR); // this is constant
// or alternatively:
$myFantasticInterface = Foo::bar();
new $myFantasticInterface;
$myAwesomeInterface = Foo::BAR;
new $myAwesomeInterface;
There's no real surprises at a glance as long as you don't intentionally
make your code obscure.
Bob
