Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
On 3/21/13 7:37 AM, Derick Rethans wrote: On Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Steve Clay wrote: call_user_func() just seems so ugly now that we have nicer syntax in so many other areas. That doesn't mean we should just be ripping out functionality that works perfectly fine. I was not clear in my initial post. I don't want call_user_func removed, just made unnecessary. To reiterate why: 1. call_user_func fails reference args. (It's not a full substitute for a direct call) 2. Most callable values are already directly callable: ✓ func as string ✓ dynamic method as array ✓ static method as array static method as string ✓ Closure ✓ object with __invoke Closure in object property (I understand why this is off the table) expression containing Closure in object property If always store the callable in a var, the situation is much better: ✓ func as string ✓ dynamic method as array ✓ static method as array static method as string ✓ Closure ✓ object with __invoke ✓ Closure in object property How difficult would it be to support making this work? $c = "Foo::bar"; $c(); Steve Clay -- http://www.mrclay.org/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Steve Clay wrote: > call_user_func() just seems so ugly now that we have nicer syntax in > so many other areas. That doesn't mean we should just be ripping out functionality that works perfectly fine. cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
Am 15.3.2013 um 18:57 schrieb Stas Malyshev :
> Hi!
>
>> why not enable then this "getCallback()();"?
>
> There's an RFC for that: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/fcallfcall
> but it has some edge cases which I didn't have time to figure out yet.
Is it possible to add this alternative rule for function_call in
zend_language_parser.y:
parenthesis_expr { zend_do_begin_dynamic_function_call(&$1, 0 TSRMLS_CC); }
function_call_parameter_list { zend_do_end_function_call(&$1, &$$, &$3, 0,
$2.u.op.opline_num TSRMLS_CC); zend_do_extended_fcall_end(TSRMLS_C); }
So that you can write ($this->closure)(); (for invoking Closures instead of
first assigning it, then calling the Closure or writing
$this->closure->invoke())
Or write (getCallback())(). There should be then no edge cases as it is
properly delimited by the parenthesis.
I've shortly tested this with no new bugs.
Short example:
function a () { return "b"; }
function b () { return "c"; }
print (a())()."\n"; // prints c
function a () { return function () { print "a\n"; }; }
(a())(); // prints a
I also think this with parenthesis around it it is clearer what's being done:
the first part evaluated and then the second executed. (If I would have to
choose I would prefer the parenthesis...)
Bob Weinand
p.s.: I'm wondering why, with this little patch, (function () { print "a";
})(); is throwing a fatal error telling me a function name must be a string
while ($temp = function () { print "a"; })(); is working perfectly?! (I think
this is the condition which fails:
http://lxr.php.net/xref/PHP_TRUNK/Zend/zend_vm_def.h#2676, but I'm not 100%
sure and now I'm too tired to investigate further into it...)
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
Julien Pauli wrote: >On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Stas Malyshev >wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> > Also, AFAIR, call_user_func() doesn't work with functions using >> references >> > in args. >> >> Use call_user_func_array() for that, it supports refs. >> > >Isn't it since 5.3 or so ? Before 5.3 call_uer_func_array() could convert copied values in the array to references, something like "worked", while obviously being wrong. This was fixed. Anyways, both call_user_func() and call_user_func_array() have their place, one for doing dynamic stuff, secondly for compatibility, no need to get rid of those. Adding syntactical sugar for calling things is a different question, but a key element of the PHP language design is to have verbosity, so that even people who don't know all constructs have a chance to search for it. We're getting rid of this slowly (i.e. due to things like $a = [ ] ) but we houldn't loose this idea completely. johannes -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
Hi! > Use call_user_func_array() for that, it supports refs. > > > Isn't it since 5.3 or so ? I think it always has been this way. See: http://3v4l.org/CGCLS -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > Also, AFAIR, call_user_func() doesn't work with functions using > references > > in args. > > Use call_user_func_array() for that, it supports refs. > Isn't it since 5.3 or so ? Julien.Pauli
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
Hi! > Also, AFAIR, call_user_func() doesn't work with functions using references > in args. Use call_user_func_array() for that, it supports refs. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:03:41 +0400, Julien Pauli wrote: On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: Angel, On 18/03/13 14:04, Julien Pauli wrote: > Also, AFAIR, call_user_func() doesn't work with functions using > references in args. Julien.Pauli AFAIK it does. Do you have an example where it doesn't? It definitely does not: http://3v4l.org/C8Kme And if you try call-time-pass-by-reference, it gets worse: http://3v4l.org/pI89l Yeah, that's what I remembered. call_user_func() is not exactly the same as calling the function, when references come to scene, it just wont work. Same with _array() implementation. Julien.Pauli call_user_func_array will work ok. This is the only call_user_func problem. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > Angel, > > On 18/03/13 14:04, Julien Pauli wrote: >> > Also, AFAIR, call_user_func() doesn't work with functions using >> > references in args. Julien.Pauli >> AFAIK it does. >> Do you have an example where it doesn't? >> > > It definitely does not: > > http://3v4l.org/C8Kme > > And if you try call-time-pass-by-reference, it gets worse: > > http://3v4l.org/pI89l > > Yeah, that's what I remembered. call_user_func() is not exactly the same as calling the function, when references come to scene, it just wont work. Same with _array() implementation. Julien.Pauli
RE: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
> Angel, > > On 18/03/13 14:04, Julien Pauli wrote: > > > Also, AFAIR, call_user_func() doesn't work with functions using > > > references in args. Julien.Pauli > > AFAIK it does. > > Do you have an example where it doesn't? > > > > It definitely does not: > > http://3v4l.org/C8Kme > > And if you try call-time-pass-by-reference, it gets worse: > > http://3v4l.org/pI89l > > Anthony Although it does not work with call_user_func() it does work with call_user_func_array() see: http://3v4l.org/GdUmM -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
Angel, On 18/03/13 14:04, Julien Pauli wrote: > > Also, AFAIR, call_user_func() doesn't work with functions using > > references in args. Julien.Pauli > AFAIK it does. > Do you have an example where it doesn't? > It definitely does not: http://3v4l.org/C8Kme And if you try call-time-pass-by-reference, it gets worse: http://3v4l.org/pI89l Anthony
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
On 18/03/13 14:04, Julien Pauli wrote: > Also, AFAIR, call_user_func() doesn't work with functions using > references in args. Julien.Pauli AFAIK it does. Do you have an example where it doesn't? -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> > ${'_'.!$_=getCallback()}();
> >
> Well now, that's an... interesting abuse of resolution order and type
> juggling.
>
>
Really crazy, yeah
Also, AFAIR, call_user_func() doesn't work with functions using references
in args.
Julien.Pauli
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
> ${'_'.!$_=getCallback()}();
>
Well now, that's an... interesting abuse of resolution order and type juggling.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
2013/3/15 Stas Malyshev > Hi! > > > why not enable then this "getCallback()();"? > > There's an RFC for that: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/fcallfcall > but it has some edge cases which I didn't have time to figure out yet. > In the long run I think it would be great :) Earlier I also realized, that [MyClass::class, 'methodName'](); doesn't work either. Regards, Sebastian > > > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- github.com/KingCrunch
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
Hi! > why not enable then this "getCallback()();"? There's an RFC for that: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/fcallfcall but it has some edge cases which I didn't have time to figure out yet. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
Am 15.3.2013 um 16:59 schrieb Anthony Ferrara :
> Bob,
>
> call_user_func is not call_user_func_array
>
> call_user_func($func) is the same as $func(). In any way.
>
> Not in any way. call_user_func accepts any expression for the function to
> call. `$func()` only accepts callables.
>
> Example:
>
> call_user_func(getCallback());
> getCallback()(); // <-- syntax error.
>
> You *could* solve it with variable foo:
>
> ${'_'.!$_=getCallback()}();
>
> But I'd stick to call_user_func()...
Hey,
why not enable then this "getCallback()();"?
but yes, call_user_func should remain there alone in the combination with
call_user_func_array.
Bob Weinand
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
Bob,
call_user_func is not call_user_func_array
>
> call_user_func($func) is the same as $func(). In any way.
>
Not in any way. call_user_func accepts any expression for the function to
call. `$func()` only accepts callables.
Example:
call_user_func(getCallback());
getCallback()(); // <-- syntax error.
You *could* solve it with variable foo:
${'_'.!$_=getCallback()}();
But I'd stick to call_user_func()...
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
Am 15.3.2013 um 15:50 schrieb Ángel González : > On 15/03/13 15:19, Steve Clay wrote: >> I'm sure this question has been discussed before, so if anyone can >> point to me to links or briefly recap I'd appreciate it. >> >> Why can't we make $someCallable() always work? E.g. http://3v4l.org/FLpAq >> >> I understand the problem of $obj->foo() where ->foo is a callable >> property. The workaround could be: >> >> ($obj->foo)(); >> >> call_user_func() just seems so ugly now that we have nicer syntax in >> so many other areas. >> >> Steve Clay > No. > > What if I want to call functions with a variable number of arguments? > > For instance, the common piece of a hook system implementation, where > the arguments of the functions called vary depending on the hook. call_user_func is not call_user_func_array call_user_func($func) is the same as $func(). In any way. Bob Weinand -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
On 15/03/13 15:19, Steve Clay wrote: > I'm sure this question has been discussed before, so if anyone can > point to me to links or briefly recap I'd appreciate it. > > Why can't we make $someCallable() always work? E.g. http://3v4l.org/FLpAq > > I understand the problem of $obj->foo() where ->foo is a callable > property. The workaround could be: > > ($obj->foo)(); > > call_user_func() just seems so ugly now that we have nicer syntax in > so many other areas. > > Steve Clay No. What if I want to call functions with a variable number of arguments? For instance, the common piece of a hook system implementation, where the arguments of the functions called vary depending on the hook. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we kill call_user_func?
2013/3/15 Steve Clay > I'm sure this question has been discussed before, so if anyone can point > to me to links or briefly recap I'd appreciate it. > > Why can't we make $someCallable() always work? E.g. http://3v4l.org/FLpAq > > I understand the problem of $obj->foo() where ->foo is a callable > property. The workaround could be: > > ($obj->foo)(); > > call_user_func() just seems so ugly now that we have nicer syntax in so > many other areas. > You don't need to use it, if you don't like it. > > > Steve Clay > -- > http://www.mrclay.org/ > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- github.com/KingCrunch
