2021-03-26 3:38 GMT+01:00, Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net>:
>
>
>> On Mar 25, 2021, at 4:09 PM, Olle Härstedt <olleharst...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 2021-03-25 17:49 GMT+01:00, Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net>:
>>>> On Mar 25, 2021, at 11:22 AM, Olle Härstedt <olleharst...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2021-03-25 16:02 GMT+01:00, Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2021, at 10:41 AM, Rowan Tommins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/03/2021 12:31, Nuno Maduro wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason why we believe the vast majority of PHP Developers are
>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> appreciate this RFC is because multi-line short closures (aka
>>>>>>> Auto-capturing multi-statement closures) *are more simple, shorter
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> write, and prettier to read *— and the community love these changes
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> proven on "property promotions", "one-line short closures", etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My main point was that the RFC needs to spell out this argument,
>>>>>> rather
>>>>>> than taking it for granted that everyone agrees on "those situations
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> that is warranted".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of the current text should be summarised in a "syntax choices"
>>>>>> section somewhere near the end. I would like to see much more space
>>>>>> devoted to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Why we need this feature. What has changed since it was left out of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> arrow functions RFC? What problems is it addressing? Why do you think
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> is the best approach to those problems?
>>>>>> * The exact semantics proposed: How will the variables to be captured
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> determined? Will it distinguish variables which are written before
>>>>>> they're
>>>>>> read, and if so how is that defined? Can auto-capturing closures be
>>>>>> nested, i.e. will "fn() { return fn() { echo $a; } }" capture $a from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> outermost scope? And so on...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Besides, one advantage of this RFC is that it is consistent with the
>>>>>>> current syntax of the language and with the short-functions RFC[2].
>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>> example, by proposing that "fn" keyword indicates a function will
>>>>>>> auto-capture variables, by value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While it's a cute rationalisation, there's no intuitive reason why
>>>>>> "fn"
>>>>>> should have that meaning; we could pick any aspect of the current
>>>>>> arrow
>>>>>> function syntax and say "the 'fn' keyword means that".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand "use (*)" has no usages / or current meaning in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a straw man argument. I could equally say that "fn() { } has
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> usages or current meaning in the language" - of course it doesn't, we
>>>>>> haven't added it yet!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "function use() {}" part of "function use(*) {}" has a
>>>>>> well-established meaning, and "*" to mean "everything" is a notation
>>>>>> developers are likely to be very familiar with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The two disadvantages I see with using "fn" as proposed are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Because it's shorter, people will decide it's the "better" version,
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> they don't actually need any variable capture. An explicit syntax
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> "use(*)" instead makes this a deliberate choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet adding " use (*)" makes the syntax longer, which goes against
>>>>> one
>>>>> of
>>>>> the goals many people have for it: to be shorter.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand why this is a target in the first place. Shorter
>>>> does not mean more readable, and readable is more important than
>>>> writable.
>>>
>>> I agree that readable is more important than writable, but shorter also
>>> does
>>> not necessarily mean it is *less* readable, either.
>>
>> Sure. The brain removes noise and reads in "symbols" anyway (where
>> "fn" or "function" is a symbol of size 1).
>
> That is actually not exactly true, at least not in all cases.
>
> When "nction" combined with " use (.....)" adds to line length such that a
> developer must scroll horizontally to see all the text then it is not the
> same.
>
> And this is not a hypothetical for those of us who frequently use vertical
> split screen in our editors — I am constantly battling with lines that are
> too long.
>
> Also when longer lines cause code to wrap on GitHub or in blog posts or
> other places then it is not the same.
>
>> A more important aspect of readability is the cognitive load on
>> short-term memory, or how many "chunks" the programmer has to keep in
>> memory to understand a piece of code. In this case, I think
>> immutability and local scope helps a lot, of which PHP has neither. Or
>> maybe predictability of the scope? All language quirks hurt
>> readability. I never had a problem with scope in JS, despite it
>> lacking immutability and only recently got proper block scope.
>
> Given that the RFC prescribes by-value capture and not by-ref capture how it
> is really even a problem? Or are you arguing that you fear people will just
> write closures hundreds of lines long?
>
> Maybe PHP should deprecate functions longer than 50 or 100 lines?
> <rhetorical question>
>
>> Maybe more important than explicit/implicit capturing of scope is to
>> keep your functions short...? In our legacy code-base, we have functions
>> thousands of lines long. I can see auto-capturing being a problem
>> there, but that's because of the technical debt and not the feature
>> itself, I guess. Will our juniors realize that, tho?
>
> Now here is where I think the real problem is, the fact that other
> developers write functions thousands of lines long.
>
> But realistically, legacy code won't be affected as people are rarely if
> ever going to go back to your legacy code and convert a thousand line
> function into a closure with auto-capture.
No, I'm more concerned that someone will add a closer at the *bottom*
of a long-ass function, capturing all variables, and then not have a
properly defined lifetime, causing a memory leak or "spooky action at
a distance" with object references. In other words, could it be a
foot-gun? Maybe far-fetched, I don't know.
Olle
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
