On 18/08/2026 16.54, Larry Garfield wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2026, at 9:07 AM, Henrik Skov wrote:
Yes, but I think one should consider params COOKIE_PARAMS {...} more of a type !
Then why not create a type for ithttps://3v4l.org/lNjSX#vgit.master
--
Because it is not worthy of a full class.
I really don't understand why people keep saying this. What makes something "unworthy"
of being a class? Classes are not expensive, at least not as expensive as people seem to think. A
data construct doesn't need to be as righteous as Thor to be "worthy" of a class. Plus,
in PHP, building new things on top of classes/objects (like enums) is way, way easier than new
standalone constructs.
By the same logic, why do we have enums ?
A class of constants works just as fine as an enum ?
It does not, because it doesn't create a bounded space. Constants are just a shorthand for
"any int" or "any string."
Maybe I shouldn't have said 'type' - What I meant was language construct I think
If what you're ultimately after is a "lazy value" that isn't evaluated until it is read,
I could see a use for that. Binding it to "parameters" makes no sense, though. And in
practice, such a feature would almost certainly end up build on top of either closures or objects
anyway. (And closures themselves are just objects, in fact.)
It was a kind of lazy value (the lazy value being in essense a parameters
array) I was after - if by lazy value you mean a value you would only change in
one place and then it would affect all places where ...COOKIE_PARAMS are used
(only 6 places in my current codebase but that's room even for the parameters
not to be in sync)
/Henrik
--Larry Garfield
--
Med venlig hilsen
Henrik Skov
/HSK Consulting/
Blegdamsvej 128B, 4
DK-2100 Copenhagen O
Tel.: +45 27 62 83 01
Email: [email protected]
