On 23 July 2010 03:05, Harald Lapp wrote:
> i would like to ask what's the state of $this (and 'self') in closures.
> there seems to be no news on this topic for several month now. php 5.3.3 was
> just released and still nothing has changed regarding this. so i would like
> to ask, for which php r
2010/7/23 Karoly Negyesi :
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Joel Perras wrote:
>> What's confusing about it? Each expression means something very
>> different and distinct.
>>
>> I use $foo(), new $foo(), classname::$foo, classname::$foo(),
>> $bar::$foo, $bar::$foo(), etc. on a regular basis, a
Hi all,
I just proposed a patch for this request (see the bug tracker). I
don't know if it's the good way to handle this. Maybe you don't want
to add this request (for which I think it could be great). Just tell
me what you think.
Hope it helps.
++ Jerome
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Develop
On 2010-07-22, at 8:49 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> So you do not consider it utterly confusing that
No. I know kung-fu.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi!
classname::$foo
classname::$foo()
mean two completely different things? The first reads a property the
And classname::foo and classname::foo() means two different things too.
So what? Language has its rules, learn them. It's not that hard.
If you nuke variable function calls and method
On 23/Jul/10 1:54 AM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
Hi,
Given that call_user_func exists I would recommend to remove $foo()
from PHP Next.
Observe the "logic" in the following examples:
$foo();
new $foo();
classname::$foo;
classname::$foo();
How about:
$lambda = function () {};
$lambda();
What sh
On 2010-07-23, at 2:49 AM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
>
> So you do not consider it utterly confusing that
>
> classname::$foo
> classname::$foo()
>
> mean two completely different things? The first reads a property the
> second reads a local variable. Any time you need to backtrack when you
> the so
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Joel Perras wrote:
> What's confusing about it? Each expression means something very
> different and distinct.
>
> I use $foo(), new $foo(), classname::$foo, classname::$foo(),
> $bar::$foo, $bar::$foo(), etc. on a regular basis, and it can make for
> some very ele
What's confusing about it? Each expression means something very
different and distinct.
I use $foo(), new $foo(), classname::$foo, classname::$foo(),
$bar::$foo, $bar::$foo(), etc. on a regular basis, and it can make for
some very elegant, concise and readable code.
Moreover, this really isn't so
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Davey Shafik wrote:
> You can call classname::$foo() and even $obj->$foo() with call_user_func(),
> should we get rid of those too?
Absolutely not.
> I grant you that variable function calls are sometimes confusing, lambda
> functions are a better way to do it
You can call classname::$foo() and even $obj->$foo() with call_user_func(),
should we get rid of those too?
I grant you that variable function calls are sometimes confusing, lambda
functions are a better way to do it perhaps, but just because something can be
abused, doesn't mean it should be r
Am 23.07.2010 01:36, schrieb Karoly Negyesi:
>> public function __get($subclass)
>> {
>> $include_file = CONTENTLOUNGE_BASEDIR . 'api_' . $subclass . '.php';
>> $class_name = 'cl_' . $subclass;
>> $this->$subclass = new $class_name();
>> return $this->$subclass;
>> }
>
> And this code contai
> public function __get($subclass)
> {
> $include_file = CONTENTLOUNGE_BASEDIR . 'api_' . $subclass . '.php';
> $class_name = 'cl_' . $subclass;
> $this->$subclass = new $class_name();
> return $this->$subclass;
> }
And this code contains no variable function call. You mixed it up with
a var
Why will you kill the following pretty working code to load
classes if they needed and use only $cl_api->subclass->method()
in the whole application?
The whole implementation is little complexer, if file does not exist
it looks if the file "modules/$subclass/api$subclass" exists and
do the same, s
Hi,
Given that call_user_func exists I would recommend to remove $foo()
from PHP Next.
Observe the "logic" in the following examples:
$foo();
new $foo();
classname::$foo;
classname::$foo();
There is a word for this and that word is madness.
The simplest is to nuke $foo(). call_user_func() is a
Rasmus - so what is the state of Named Parameters? We discussed it and the
sentiment seemed to be more or less positive about including it in PHP 6.3 .
Now what should happen?
Greg
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
hello,
i would like to ask what's the state of $this (and 'self') in closures.
there seems to be no news on this topic for several month now. php 5.3.3
was just released and still nothing has changed regarding this. so i
would like to ask, for which php release a solution is planned.
thanks
17 matches
Mail list logo
