Hello, On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Hannes Magnusson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 18:45, Etienne Kneuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Dmitry Stogov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hi Christan, >>> >>> Could you please look into this patch. >>> I'm not sure if explicit declaration of Closure::__invoke() is good idea. As >>> it cannot provide proper argument information. >>> >>> May be the patch which you propose already solves this problem for >>> reflection. (I didn't have time to look into it). >>> >> >> After discussing it with Dmitry, I removed the reflection part from >> the patch, giving full reflection info on Closures seems like a better >> idea, even if it requires patching Reflection itself. > > I'm confused. What exactly is the problem you solved? >
Since no Invokable interface can sanely be implemented, it won't get implemented. However, my patch adds flexibility for future internal classes willing to use $x(); by defining get_closure as a handler. Regards > -Hannes > > -- Etienne Kneuss http://www.colder.ch Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction. -- Pascal -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
