On 20.12.2007 11:18, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
> On 12/20/07, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 20.12.2007 09:57, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
>> > being able to do the following (and not to worry about runtime
>> > compilation) is a good reason on it's own:
>> >
>> > array_filter($my_data, function($test){ return 3 === ($test % 4) });
>>
>> Oh, my..
>> This code clearly demonstrates why a syntax like this should not be allowed.
>> Ever.
>
> you prefer cluttering namespace with a lot of oneliners?
Oh, come on.. Since when do we call it "cluttering"?
Is there some kind of limit on number of functions in a namespace?
Why limit yourself and "inline" the function instead of putting it
into a nice library of utility functions?
> currently, people prefer to use explicit cycles instead of
> array_map/array_filter and that looks ugly (hides actual logic behind
> syntax), but at least it is not as slow as create_function.
Whatever people currently use - it's their choice.
If you think that people would magically switch to the new syntax (if we decide
to
add it after all) in a moment, I'm afraid I have to upset you - this will not
happen
in the next 10 years because of many reasons, so people would still use the
good
old syntax they're used to.
So here is what we _actually_ get with this anonymous function syntax:
1) Yet another way to make the code unreadable and overcomplicated.
2) Yet another incompatible syntax you cannot use if you need to support older
PHP versions
(and you can't check for it in runtime, since this is a compile time thingie).
3) 10 people happy because they got a new toy.
--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
