That's one of the motivations for the patch. I never liked the new
syntax, but if it was given a go, it should also be made consistent
with the another part of the syntax. Oh, I just got one important
thing in mind to mention;
test1.php:
<?php
function a() {
$a = "bar";
include("test2.php");
}
$a = "foo";
a();
b();
?>
test2.php:
<?php
function b() use ($a) {
echo $a, "\n";
}
b();
?>
running test1.php ends up with two lines of "bar", surprisingly. This
is somewhat confusing, but surely one of the things that could not
ever be done. This might be a great help when you use a PHP-script
file as a mark-up template.
Moriyoshi
On 2008/07/18, at 15:10, Larry Garfield wrote:
Which is why I am not a fan of this syntax as proposed. You're
using the same
keyword to mean two different but very very close things. That's very
confusing. It also means that you cannot take a global by value in a
closure.
Earlier the following was proposed:
function foo($a, &$b) global ($c, &$d) {
}
$bar = new function($a, &$b) use ($c, &$d) global ($e, &$f) {
};
Which I think is much more self-explanatory, accomplishes the same
goal, and
still does not introduce any new keywords. (I still think
"lexical" is
better than "use", and safe, but whatev. <g>)
--
Larry Garfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
