Hi!
I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Either the interface covers
__invoke and "$obj instanceof Invokable" is a safe check to know if we
can $obj();, or it doesn't and we know nothing.
Well, if you put it this way, it's not going to work. However, I thought
there's middle ground - i.e.
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Etienne Kneuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But please check out the get_closure handler.
Scratch that, I didn't see the other mails ;)
Regards,
--
Etienne Kneuss
http://www.colder.ch
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it
Hello,
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> 1) I don't believe that having it thrown as another of those magic
>> method is a good idea. Rather, I'd like to have it represented by an
>> interface: Invokable. That way, type hints/checks ca
Hi!
1) I don't believe that having it thrown as another of those magic
method is a good idea. Rather, I'd like to have it represented by an
interface: Invokable. That way, type hints/checks can be done in user
land in a sane matter:
We can have Invokable and even have Closure implement it, if
Hello Etienne,
Saturday, August 2, 2008, 7:36:23 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> this is probably not the best time to raise concerns about __invoke
> (closures) now that alpha1 is already realeased, but I believe it's
> worth it.
Actually it is the best time, well earlier would probably have been even
Hi Etienne,
Am Samstag, den 02.08.2008, 19:36 +0200 schrieb Etienne Kneuss:
[...]
> 1) I don't believe that having it thrown as another of those magic
> method is a good idea. Rather, I'd like to have it represented by an
> interface: Invokable. That way, type hints/checks can be done in user
> la
