On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 13:24, Marcos Passos <marcospassos....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You can also see it as a language construct that expects a type at the > left-hand side of the name resolution operator. In that sense, primitive > types are perfectly valid. > While I can see that as an interpretation, it doesn't make a lot of sense: - the keyword "class" implies that this will always return a class name; it is the static equivalent of get_class(), which does not support non-objects - if instead it was resolving a "type", you might expect it to return the same values as gettype(), which for any object is simply the string "object" - the main purpose of the feature is to resolve namespace lookups and aliases, but basic types are not subject to namespaces; in other words, "int::class" can only ever return "int" As Marco says, if you have a use case where allowing this is helpful, please share it, and we can discuss if this, or some new related feature (e.g. "array::type"), would be worth supporting. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]
