On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:55 AM Kalle Sommer Nielsen <ka...@php.net> wrote:
> Hi > > Den søn. 10. mar. 2019 kl. 23.45 skrev Larry Garfield < > la...@garfieldtech.com>: > > > > Hello, peoples. I know it's been discussed once or twice before on the > list, many years ago, but not recently. I therefore feel OK putting forth > the following draft proposal for Comprehensions, aka "compact generators", > in PHP: > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/comprehensions > > While I think believe the RFC has great intentions, I am not a fan by > any means to introduce convoluted syntaxes like this into PHP, I think > it is rather hard to read vs the gain of saving a few key strokes. I > think that both the shorthand closures and this makes PHP code > potentially even harder to read and I would prefer we did not add such > essential sugar where you need to understand the semantics very well > to understand what a piece of foreign code may do, in what order (like > the no yield example given). > > One more thing that kinda "annoys" me / what I base my above statement > on is; when reading some of the example is that the code examples > given, as in the code inside a Comprehension does not look very > PHP-ish besides the $-sigil and I do not like the idea of having "two" > syntaxes for PHP where one is only available in a very narrow-, > specific context and I feel it would be prone to potential errors. > > Everything looks weird and "non-phpish" when it's new. OO constructs weren't PHP-ish at first, because PHP didn't originally support OO. Imagine "foreach" didn't exist in PHP and we were still using while(list($key,$value) = each($arr)) syntax. I agree that some of the examples are a bit hard to read and understand - but that's only because we haven't been exposed to them. This isn't meant as an endorsement of the proposal. I just don't think the fact that it adds something different than what we are used to is a good justification for not supporting it. As a non-voting userland developer, I'm personally ambivalent. They seem cool, and I'm sure I'll use them, but it won't be a big deal if they aren't added. > Another thing that has been mentioned by multiple people now is the > for-vs-foreach; If it is a foreach, which you mention in the RFC then > it should be so, not for. A little background on where I am coming > from here; I think it is great that we look at other languages and > technologies when designing PHP and adding more features the language, > however while I do believe it is an important point to keep cross > language consistency, I do think that consistency with PHP itself is > more important, which I believe too, is the reason for the expression > for using foreach in this context comes from (not only from my PoV). > > I was originally going to say I agreed with this position, but, after thinking about it, I've changed my mind. A "for" loop is just a method of specifying the keys that you are iterating over. Since you aren't specifying the keys inside a comprehension, the traditional "for" loop doesn't really exist. I'd suggest supporting both keywords, though. > -- > regards, > > Kalle Sommer Nielsen > ka...@php.net > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- -- Chase chasepee...@gmail.com
