Anonymous Classes - #1118

This is excellent, I've been trying to integrate the old Anonymous class RFC into a custom build PHP, but this will make things a lot easier since it's designed for PHP 7. I wonder though, is it possible to make this into a .diff patch so I can play with its functionality on a linux server?

Why not just grab the branch and build it? It’s slightly older than master, but changes are going to be pulled in shortly. Either way it runs just fine.

-- 
Phil

From: HallofFamer [email protected]
Reply: php/php-src [email protected]>
Date: February 24, 2015 at 12:57:16 PM
To: php/php-src [email protected]>
Cc: Phil Sturgeon [email protected]>
Subject:  Re: [php-src] [WIP] Anonymous Classes (#1118)

This is excellent, I've been trying to integrate the old Anonymous class RFC into a custom build PHP, but this will make things a lot easier since it's designed for PHP 7. I wonder though, is it possible to make this into a .diff patch so I can play with its functionality on a linux server?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@HallofFamer If you really need to download the diff in text form (instead of checking out the branch using git). you can add .patch (or .diff) to this pages url:
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1118.diff

@suralc: Oh thats excellent, thanks. I really love Anonymous and Nested class features, they make PHP's OO more complete. Good luck to this RFC!

In the RFC, you mention Class$$1 format, but here you use Class@1, which one is correct?

Looks like get_class() is broken anyway, it returns (probably) pointer address: http://3v4l.org/BQhJM/rfc#rfc-anonymous_classes (but maybe 3v4l is using just outdated commit)

How would be nested anonymous clases named? Imagine:

$foo = new class {
    function bar() {
        return new class {};
    }
};
var_dump(get_class($foo->bar()));

@Majkl578 nothing broken about it. Check the RFC for more on naming things. Ignore Class$$ its Class@

Oh, yep, the names were off. The code just does class@foo instead of trying to give it a fancy human readable name.

That doesn't matter much, as relying on the class name or type hinting against it would be useless and wildly irresponsible. The RFC is now up to date with code output.

Superseded by #1249.