>
> Regarding $field vs. $this->propName, there's a few reasons we went that
> route.
Overall I think this is a really good proposal, but you might want to
consider a second vote for that particular syntax.
`$field` vs `$this->propName` feels a little magical. It's a simpler magic
than actual ma
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 11:05 AM Lydia de Jongh wrote:
>
> Wow! Yess please. My mail yesterday crossed yours, I guess (thanks Claude
> for answering)
> asking for almost the same:
>
> myClass::$normalProperty::name
>
> So I would like to add my thoughts to your proposal.
>
> I prefer a magic const
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 5:58 PM Robert Landers wrote:
>
> > Can you provide more details on what the error conditions are? I can
> > see 'non-existent static variable' and 'non-existent variable', are
> > there others?
>
> Absolutely! I'll add it to the RFC later tonight, but the gist is that
> it
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 5:18 PM Niels Dossche wrote:
>
> On 13/05/2023 09:27, Robert Landers wrote:
> > Hello Internals,
> >
> > It is with much trepidation and excitement that I'd like to announce
> > the `nameof` RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nameof). It has changed
> > quite a bit in the last c
> Can you provide more details on what the error conditions are? I can
> see 'non-existent static variable' and 'non-existent variable', are
> there others?
Absolutely! I'll add it to the RFC later tonight, but the gist is that
it would be exactly the same as if you were to call any function with
> The one part of the RFC that surprised me was this:
>
> > When getting the name of constants and functions, the name will NOT be the
> > full name, but the lexical name. This means that if the name is use'd, it
> > will be that name. However, if the full name is used in the nameof(), the
> > f
On 13/05/2023 09:27, Robert Landers wrote:
> Hello Internals,
>
> It is with much trepidation and excitement that I'd like to announce
> the `nameof` RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nameof). It has changed
> quite a bit in the last couple of days, so if you haven't seen the
> latest draft, please ch
On Sat, 13 May 2023 at 08:27, Robert Landers wrote:
>
> Hello Internals,
>
> It is with much trepidation and excitement that I'd like to announce
> the `nameof` RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nameof).
Can you provide more details on what the error conditions are? I can
see 'non-existent static var
On 13 May 2023 10:04:39 BST, Lydia de Jongh wrote:
>I prefer a magic constant like `::name` instead of a function call as it
>can be used in a wider scope; for example as a parameter in an Attribute.
Don't confuse the syntax with the implementation: "::class" isn't actually a
constant, and the
On 13 May 2023 00:08:22 BST, Larry Garfield
>A better argument, I think:
>
>The old function exists in 8.2, the new one does not.
>The new one exists in 8.3.
>The old one ceases to exist in 9.0.
>
>That means it's impossible to write code that works from 8.2 to 9.0 without
>version checks. The o
Wow! Yess please. My mail yesterday crossed yours, I guess (thanks Claude
for answering)
asking for almost the same:
myClass::$normalProperty::name
So I would like to add my thoughts to your proposal.
I prefer a magic constant like `::name` instead of a function call as it
can be used in a wider
Hello Internals,
It is with much trepidation and excitement that I'd like to announce
the `nameof` RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nameof). It has changed
quite a bit in the last couple of days, so if you haven't seen the
latest draft, please check it out.
Essentially, it allows using `nameof()` an
12 matches
Mail list logo
