On 2010-06-08 12:41:21 +0200, Johannes Schlüter said:
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 12:23 +0200, Jacob Oettinger wrote:
Would it be equally simple to allow the syntax below?
$result = new ResultMaker()->getIt();
does this mean
$result = new (ResultMaker()->getIt());
or
$result = (new ResultMaker())->getIt();
I assume the later, but that is non-obvious as we allow
$result = new $class();
and
$resultOfFunc = returnsFunc()();
Having closures this might make sense. (While I don't want to debug code
like $foo("bar")[42]->do()("it"); )
Oh and obviously +1 on the original patch. ;-)
johannes
I think a pretty solution could be to introduce a new magic method like
__invoke() at the difference that's a static method not an instance method.
Let's me take the name __create() for this example :
class Foo {
public function __create() {
return new Foo();
}
public function doSomething() {
// ...
}
}
$foo = Foo()->doSomething();
This could be a very nice improvement :
- We could chain contruction and method call for classes with lot of setters.
- We could make factory design pattern more simplier.
- We no more need a name convention for singleton like getInstance().
- It's clean and easy to read.
- other ?
Personnaly, I actually use this in all of my class. And wrote always code like
this :
$class = Class::create()->setSomeThing()->doOtherThing();
In fact the uniq problem i see, is could be a name conflict like :
function Foo() {
// ...
}
class Foo() {
public __create() {
// ...
}
}
Foo(); // Instanciate the class or call the function ?
I hope this idea can help/inspire you.
Regards,
--
Alban Leroux
s...@paradoxal.org
Web developper
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
