On Thu, 07 May 2026 15:19:01 +0000, Alex Rock wrote:
> Thanks for this RFC, here are my 2cents:
>
> I think the current syntax is too close to current short closures, and
> since it allows multiline closures, it would imply that by default all
> multiline short closures are scoped, which is not intuitive since
> traditional closures don't capture by default.
> Instead, I think replacing the `fn () { }` syntax to add a keyboard
> indicating it inherits the scope would drastically help making it more
> intuitive.
>
> I would imagine instead something like this:
>
> $externalVar = 0;
> $closure1 = scoped fn () => $newVar1 = $externalVar++;
> $closure2 = scoped function () {
> return $newVar2 = $externalVar++;
> };
> $closure1();
> $closure2();
> var_dump($newVar1); // int(0)
> var_dump($newVar2); // int(1)
> var_dump($externalVar); // int(2)
>
> This way, for the first case, the only new information that `scoped`
> brings is the potential existence of `$newVar1` after the closure's
> execution, and for the second closure, it makes it explicit that all
> variables in the closure's body are shared with the parent scope.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Le 06/05/2026 à 22:09, Bob Weinand a écrit :
> > Volker and I drafted a RFC:
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scope-functions
> >
> > Please consider it and share your feedback.
> >
> > I hope it will alleviate pain around some of the most common forms of
> > Closure usage which is "execute this now as part of the called
> > function", which currently can require a lot of "use ($variables)".
> >
> > For me the primary use case of use ($capturing) was always "I need
> > this function later and want to explicitly document what escapes my
> > function". This, however, required this straightforward usage of
> > Closures to also document every single usage of a variable. Which is
> > really not that beneficial at all.
> >
> > Thus the scope functions as proposed will be able to fill that gap in
> > future.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Bob
I agree that the new syntax is too close to current short closures.
I don't think we need a new keyword though, I think the presence of `=>`
in the function definition should indicate that scope is captured, like
this:
```
function() => {
// ...
}
```
To put it another way `fn() => foo;` would be a syntactically identical
version of `function() => {return foo;}`
