Hi Ben!
Ben Scholzen 'DASPRiD' wrote:
Hello,
I've written up an RFC for supporting generic classes and methods in
PHP, and I'd love to hear your thoughts about it.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/generics
Cheers,
Generics are a feature I'd love to see in PHP. I think this RFC could do
with a little elaboration, though.
Something that's particularly important to me is if it be possible to
have default values for type parameters? For example, could I make a
class like this?
<?php
// note the =, a default value (like function parameters)
class List<T=mixed>
{
private $array = [];
// ...
public function append(T $value) {
$this->array[] = $value;
}
}
$integerList = new List<int>; // only accepts integers
$list = new List; // accepts any value
Here, 'mixed' means any type, like in the PHP manual or in Hack. We
don't currently have a 'mixed' typehint since we don't need it (you can
simply omit a typehint for a parameter or return type), but it would be
useful here.
I'd like it if this was possible, because then you could make existing
classes use generics without breaking compatibility. It's also more
beginner-friendly: people who don't know about generics don't have to
use them, if the class author has made this possible. This is in keeping
with the "PHP way" where we don't require people to use type hints if
they don't want them.
On a different note, I'm not sure I like the `class Baz<Foo : \Bar>`
syntax. For functions parameters, we put the type name before the
variable name, e.g. `function foo(int $bar)`. So, could we do the same
here, i.e. `class <\Bar Foo>`, for consistency?
Though that looks a little strange to me. It's two bare identifiers next
to eachother (`\Bar Foo`), unlike function parameters where the second
one has a dollar prefix (`\Bar $foo`). Perhaps type variables, like
regular variables, should have some sort of sigil in PHP? This would
make it more obvious that something is a type variable and not a class
name. To take an example from your RFC, consider the following code snippet:
class Entry<KeyType, ValueType>
{
// ...
public function __construct(KeyType $key, ValueType $value)
{
// ...
}
// ...
}
If we hadn't seen the class declaration at the top which makes `KeyType`
and `ValueType` be type parameters, we might not realise they weren't
ordinary classes or interfaces when we looked at `__construct`. The
-Type suffix you've used helps a little, but that's a convention, and
isn't guaranteed to be used. Also, in some existing projects, there
might be classes with that suffix.
What if we use some sort of sigil here to make it clear? Say we used %:
class Entry<%KeyType, %ValueType>
{
// ...
public function __construct(%KeyType $key, %ValueType $value)
{
// ...
}
// ...
}
Now, without having to look at the class declaration, we can tell that
`KeyType` isn't a class name, because it has % in front of it.
Anyway, all that being said: the big challenge with generics is really
getting someone to do the nitty-gritty of implementing it. It's great
that you've got an RFC written for this, but unless someone is willing
to implement it, I fear it may go to waste. But you writing an RFC might
inspire someone. There is hope!
Hope my thoughts are somewhat helpful.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
