2013/9/27 Michael Wallner <m...@php.net>
> On 27 September 2013 09:55, Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > If you need access to the methods in AProxifier then why does the
> anonymous
> >> class extend A, you should extend AProxifier as you would with any other
> >> class.
> >>
> >
> > Because A has the behavior I want to extend?
> >
> > An other example:
> >
> > class A {...}
> > class B {...}
> >
> > class Factory
> > {
> > protected function protectedMethod() {...}
> >
> > function getA()
> > {
> > return new class extends A {.. call Factory::protectedMethod()?
> ..};
> > }
> >
> > function getB()
> > {
> > return new class extends B {.. call Factory::protectedMethod()?
> ..};
> > }
> > }
> >
> > This is possible and welcomed with closures.
> > I see it as useful for anonymous classes than it is for anonymous
> functions.
> > What do others you think about it?
>
> -1
>
> Just because a closure is an anonymous function does not mean that an
> anonymous class has closure capabilites.
>
Just ... Isn't that something, we can simply keep out of _this_ RFC and
create separate RFC(s) for it later? Like it was done with "$this in
Closures"?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
github.com/KingCrunch
