On 12 May 2015 17:08:16 BST, Alexandr Marchenko <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Idea of nameof (at least in my understanding) is to reduce string usage
>and replace them with “strongly” typed “pointers” which can give us
>feedback while script is processed (like when you misstyped method name
>php will give you fatal error).
The validation part makes sense, but from the description linked, there are no
pointers involved, it just results in an ordinary string. In many cases, the
string is only needed in the first place because there isn't a way of getting a
better pointer - e.g. when passing in a class name to a factory, or a method
name to some dynamic call mechanism. It would seem like a better idea to tackle
that underlying problem, with some mechanism for passing classes, methods, etc
as first-class types.
The example in that blog post of accessing a parameter name seems very ugly to
me. If a function takes positional, not named, arguments, then why should any
outside code *care* what name they're implemented under? There is no wrong
answer to "what name should I mention in this error message?".
With named parameters, that all changes, because names become part of the
signature, not the implementation. My current feeling is that parameters
should be named independent of the local variables they assign to, e.g.
function foo($bar as x, $baz as y) {
return $bar / $baz;
}
foo(y: 42, x: 420); // 10
In which case, you'd sometimes want some equivalent of nameof($bar) to give you
'x', which would be very messy.
Regards,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
