On 3-6-2023 21:11, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
Hi internals,
I'm now opening the discussion for the Closure self-reference RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closure_self_reference
This was previously discussed as a draft here:
https://externals.io/message/112216#112216
Thank-you to KapitanOczywisty for the implementation.
cheers
Dan
Ack
Hi Dan,
When I read the RFC, I keep wondering why new syntax is needed for this.
Isn't this a solved problem with the solution being "use a named function" ?
Might I suggest to expand the RFC to answer all or at least some of the
below questions ?
* Why is a recursive function call something which should be supported
at the language level for closures ?
* Was the pre-existing syntax available to solve this - named functions
- considered ?
* Why is using named functions not considered a valid solution by the
RFC proposers ?
As for the syntax choice: it seems like the proposed choice is largely
arbitrary and personal to the authors to go for a "languagesy" syntax.
* Was any research done on how frequently this is expected to be used ?
* If so, does that frequency justify the need for a change at the
language level ?
* Was any research done to find out syntax preferences from anyone other
than the authors ?
* Was the impact of introducing (yet another) syntax level change on
static analysis tools considered ?
As a co-maintainer of a static analysis tool, I would have a strong
preference for either `__CLOSURE__` or a static function on the Closure
class as that would make the syntax "isolated" to this change, while an
`as $fn` syntax change would mean that any analysis of the `as` keyword
and a lot of analysis of variables will need to be adjusted to allow for
this new syntax.
Not necessarily a reason to change the proposal, but possibly
something to consider.
Either way, my two pennies for whatever they are worth.
Smile,
Juliette
