On 02.07.26 11:51, Seifeddine Gmati wrote:
`array_destruct()` that would address the readability argument (which is
hard to discuss away because it is hyper subjective).
This can't work, and not for stylistic reasons. Destructuring happens
in a *write* context: the construct sits on the left of `=` and
receives bindings. A function can't do that. `array_destruct($a, $b) =
$arr` isn't expressible, functions return values, they don't accept
assignment targets. So a function couldn't replace `list()`; you'd
need a new *construct* to stand in for it, which means adding grammar
rather than removing it. That's the opposite of what the RFC is trying
to do. This is also the crux of the readability point, I think:
`list()` looks like a function precisely because of the parentheses,
but it isn't one, and that mismatch is part of what makes the name
misleading in the first place.
Fair enough. I had no idea it couldn't be done.
Agreed that adding another language construct doesn't make sense; only
the naming isn't enough.
