-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7.9k
Add ReflectionConstant::getExtension() and ::getExtensionName()
#16603
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add ReflectionConstant::getExtension() and ::getExtensionName()
#16603
Conversation
In favor.
I'm just not sure we need both a getExtension and getExtensionName method as we can trivially get the name from a ReflectionExtension with only a few extra keystrokes.
I'm also not too sure about the string|false return.
In favor. I'm just not sure we need both a
getExtensionandgetExtensionNamemethod as we can trivially get the name from aReflectionExtensionwith only a few extra keystrokes. I'm also not too sure about thestring|falsereturn.
I have no problem removing the name getter, but the request at #16571 included it noting that there is both a getExtension() and getExtensionName() for ReflectionClass and ReflectionFunction, so only having one of them might be a bit odd. Perhaps the getExtensionName() methods on the others should be deprecated?
No this PR is fine. It's more important to be consistent with what we have; even if it's a bit odd.
I wouldn't want to deprecate those as it doesn't cause harm.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice work, only 2 nits.
ReflectionConstant::getExtension() and ::getExtensionName() (削除ここまで)ReflectionConstant::getExtension() and ::getExtensionName() (追記ここまで)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems fine to me, but let's wait a bit for others to chime in
No reaction yet; perhaps shoot a quick email to the mailing list with a link to this PR to see if anyone objects. If no one complains we can just merge it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, looks like an oversight
e310657 to
59949e3
Compare
<rebased, conflicts with #15847>
No one complained, I'm merging this.
Thanks!
No description provided.