Greg Korba

@krzysztof-ciszewski I've converted it to a draft, so feel free to push changes and verify with the full CI 🙂.

@krzysztof-ciszewski no problem 🙂. FYI, for future contributions:   There is also possibility to create PR as draft (dedicated button on PR form).

There's no need to close the PR though, everyone works at their own pace and I just did not have the possibility to look at this more during the weekend....

Let's celebrate this PR's birthday, it's 1 year old now 🥳!  Because of that I have a gift for everyone: rebased branch 😆.

@keradus can you take a look? 😊

@keradus ooooffff, this was tough rebase after all the changes that happened to the repo in the meantime, but I was able to do it. Since `#7777` is merged, maybe...

> The only case I see where this will fail is when `__invoke()` is not defined but `__call()` is. Although that seems unlikely, the fixer should be risky for that...

Ahhh, this way 😅. I think there are 2 possible paths: - make a _pretty dumb and risky_ fixer that will just change `->__invoke()` to `()`, leaving responsibility for verifying...

@julienfalque of course, I am not against this rule, I just think it will be risky anyway, since we just can't ensure proper context (including inheritance). Side question: should the...

`+74,844 −58,592` 😵. That's probably too big PR to handle.