> Le 12 mai 2023 à 19:29, Lydia de Jongh a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> Lately I made a small object initializer/builder with php Attributes.
>
> 'Directly' accessing properties and methods of the class as a parameter in
> an Attribute is not really possible.
> You can do that for a class with: \path\to\MyClass::class, but for
> properties or methods you have to use strings, without recognition in
> editors.
>
> It would be so nice if more items in php could be accessed with a magic
> constant as you can do with ::class.
> With magic constant an editor could recognize it and it limits typos etc.
> and it provides the developer with a list of the properties/methods in
> scope.
>
> At the moment I implemented a kind of workaround by providing simple
> classes with the property names in class constants.
> Or add an extra property to a class with a property name that can be used
> in an attribute.
>
> I will try to explain with examples of my code.
>
> abstract class SaveFactoryAbstract {
> use ObjectBuilderTrait;
>
> #[ResetValue]
> protected bool $isSaved = false;
>
> #[InitObject] // tells the builder to initialize this property with the
> latest specs provided by (other) attributes
> #[ResetObject]
> protected ?SaveInterface $oSave = null;
>
> public function __construct(){
> $this->buildMe(); // provided by the trait
> }
> }
>
>
> This is straightforward. Until you extend this class and want to set the
> class for $oSave.
> The other developer does not know which properties he can declare with an
> attribute
>
> #[UseClass('oSave', ImageSave::class)]
> #[ResetValue('isSaved', default: true)]
> class ImageSaveFactory extends SaveFactoryAbstract { }
>
>
> As workaround I make classes like:
>
> class oop { // lower character on purpose, for this is not a normal class
>
> final public const isSaved = 'isSaved';
>
> final public const Save = 'oSave';
> final private function __construct() {}
> }
>
> So the extending class can be:
> This is recognized by the editor and gives the developer some clues.
> #[UseClass(oop::Save, ImageSave::class)]
> #[ResetValue(oop::isSaved, default: true)]
> class ImageSaveFactory extends SaveFactoryAbstract { }
>
> But this is really annoying.
>
>
> It would be much better if we could do something like:
> #[UseClass(static::$oSave::name, ImageSave::class)] // 'static::' can be
> used, since the attribute belong to the scope of this class
> #[ResetValue(static::$isSaved::name, default: true)]
> class ImageSaveFactory extends SaveFactoryAbstract {
> }
>
> This could also extend possibilities with/for variable variables
> Like:
> $this->myProp::name
> myClass::$staticProp::name
>
>
> A potential difficulty is: how to access normal properties/methods
> Maybe just as if they are static?
> Like parent::normalMethod() is working
> A normal property or method cannot have the same name as its static partner
> (sadly) so internally I hope it is not a problem.
>
> outside scope:
> myClass::$staticProperty::name
> myClass::$normalProperty::name
> myClass::normalMethod::name
>
> inside scope:
> static::$normalProperty::name
> self::$normalProperty::name // I do not know if 'self::' adds anything for
> this purpose, except for private properties/methods maybe
>
> inside class/object:
> $this->normalProperty::name
> $this->normalMethod::name
> $this::$staticProperty::name
> I hope you like the idea! Greetz, Lydia
Hi,
That looks like the `nameof` operator proposed a few days ago?
https://externals.io/message/120173
https://externals.io/message/120173
—Claude
