On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:39 PM Marco Pivetta <ocram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Nikita,
>
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 at 21:35, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:29 PM Marco Pivetta <ocram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 at 21:27, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 8:15 PM Arnaud Le Blanc <arnaud...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > Would that allow us to get rid of `static fn () {` declarations, when
>>>>> > creating one of these closures in an instance method context?
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be great to get rid of this, but ideally this would apply to
>>>>> Arrow
>>>>> Functions and Anonymous Functions as well. This could be a separate
>>>>> RFC.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've tried this in the past, and this is not possible due to implicit
>>>> $this uses. See
>>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/arrow_functions_v2#this_binding_and_static_arrow_functions
>>>> for a brief note on this. The tl;dr is that if your closure does "fn() =>
>>>> Foo::bar()" and Foo happens to be a parent of your current scope and bar()
>>>> a non-static method, then this performs a scoped instance call that
>>>> inherits $this. Not binding $this here would result in an Error exception,
>>>> but the compiler doesn't have any way to know that $this needs to be bound.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Nikita
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Nikita,
>>>
>>> Do you have another example? Calling instance methods statically is...
>>> well... deserving a hard crash :|
>>>
>>
>> Maybe easier to understand if you replace Foo::bar() with parent::bar()?
>> That's the most common spelling for this type of call.
>>
>> I agree that the syntax we use for this is unfortunate (because it is
>> syntactically indistinguishable from a static method call, which it is
>> *not*), but that's what we have right now, and we can hardly just stop
>> supporting it.
>>
>
> Dunno, it's a new construct, so perhaps we could do something about it.
> I'm not suggesting we change the existing `fn` or `function` declarations,
> but in this case, we're introducing a new construct, and some work already
> went in to do the eager discovery of by-val variables.
>
> Heck, variable variables already wouldn't work here, according to this RFC
> :D
>
We're not introducing a new construct. We're just extending existing fn()
functions to accept {} blocks, with exactly the same semantics as before. I
would find it highly concerning if fn() => X and fn() => { return X; } had
differences in capture semantics. Those two expressions should be strictly
identical -- the former should be desugared to the latter.
Nikita
