Pavel Kouřil wrote on 03.10.2015 10:06:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Levi Morrison <morrison.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I messaged the list about this feature before I had the RFC written up
>> for it. The RFC[1] is slightly different from what I proposed in the
>> previous thread, so please read the RFC to make sure you understand
>> what is being proposed before replying here.
>>
>> Here's a small example:
>>
>> $y = 10;
>> $result = array_map(function($x) => $x + $y, [1, 2, 3]);
>>
>> // $result is [11, 12, 13]
>>
>> Thanks for people who have participated in conversation so far, as
>> well as those who participated in Bob's short closures proposal as
>> well.
>>
>> [1]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/arrow_functions
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>
> Hello,
>
> thanks for another proposal on this feature. :)
>
> As I said in the previous e-mails, I'm not really fan of the
> "function" prefix - because it has the same prefix as the "long
> declarations". Just by removing the { } for =>, the autobinding also
> goes into place* and also only one expression is allowed, but the
> "beggining" stays the same (that being function ($x)).
>
> The function keyword also "collides" with the future scope with
> multiple statements.
>
> function ($x) use ($a, $b, $c) { $z = foo($a, $b); return $c($z, $x); }
> function ($x) => { $z = foo($a, $b); return $c($z, $x); }
>
> Now the possible confussion with the different scoping rules would be
> even bigger, IMHO. (Disclaimer: I am huge fan of those autoimports and
> think that without them, the RFC doesn't technically bring anything
> important.)
>
> Also, I'm not a fan of the "fn" prefix, because then you would have
> two ways of writing "function", and people would probably want being
> able to use "fn" for named functions as well, bringing inconsistency
> into language. Also, this would requiring making "fn" a reserved word,
> breaking some applications - wouldn't it?
>
> Personally I'd prefer the \ prefix you also mention as possible in
> your RFC. It's also AFAIK used to denote lamba expression in another
> languages already, so it might be familiar for some developers?
>
> \(int $x) => $x * $y;
> \() => foo()
> \($x) => \($y) => \($z)
>
> Yeah, this looks pretty nice.
>
> Althought I'd honestly really prefer the Bob's syntax, but I
> understand that you don't want to make some engine hacks to make it
> working - but from userland developer's POV, that one was the best
> (speaking as someone, who would use the syntax daily).
>
> --
>
> Regards
> Pavel Kouřil
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
I would prefer to keep the current syntax and just a different keyword for
autobindung:
function ($x) use ($a, $b, $c) { $z = foo($a, $b); return $c($z, $x); }
function ($x) autobind|autouse|use_all|autoimport|etc. { $z = foo($a, $b);
return $c($z, $x); }
Regards
Thomas
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
