On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, at 3:52 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 at 20:51, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, at 12:32 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > $fnConstructor = Closure::fromClassConstructor(Zoq::class);
>> > // signature of $fnConstructor is the same as
On 23.01.2023 at 19:22, Robert Landers wrote:
> Speaking of partial application, it'd be amazing if it were available
> with the current closure syntax:
>
> $func = fn($x, $y, $z) => echo $x + $y + $z;
> $plus1 = $func(..., 1);
> $plus2n1 = $func(2, 1, ...);
>
> $a = $plus1(1, 2);
> $b =
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 at 20:51, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, at 12:32 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
> >
> > $fnConstructor = Closure::fromClassConstructor(Zoq::class);
> > // signature of $fnConstructor is the same as `function(Fot $fot): Zoq`
> >
> > Or for individual methods:
> >
>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, at 12:32 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 at 17:45, Ollie Read wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>
> Hi Ollie,
>
>> I've created a feature request issue on GitHub (here:
>> https://github.com/php/php-src/issues/10414), but I have been advised that
>> it's best to post
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 at 17:45, Ollie Read wrote:
>
> Hello all,
Hi Ollie,
> I've created a feature request issue on GitHub (here:
> https://github.com/php/php-src/issues/10414), but I have been advised that
> it's best to post here.
> ...
> I think we could delay the error until the closure
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 6:31 PM Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, at 10:53 AM, Ollie Read wrote:
> > There's definitely similarity, but I would say it sits somewhere
> > between the two. Rather than reference a partial method call, or create
> > a closure for a method, you're
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, at 10:53 AM, Ollie Read wrote:
> There's definitely similarity, but I would say it sits somewhere
> between the two. Rather than reference a partial method call, or create
> a closure for a method, you're delaying a method call. Or rather,
> referencing a method. We have
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, at 10:08 AM, Robert Landers wrote:
> In my mind, Test::Func(...) should be treated the same as ['Test',
> 'Func'] or 'Test::Func' until it is called and if some fancy framework
> wants to do something special with the closure, it can do so. FWIW, I
> didn't even know this
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, at 9:39 AM, Ollie Read wrote:
> You are absolutely correct. I guess the solution would be to handle it
> differently in this case.
>
> Creating a closure from a static method would be fine, as it creates a
> static closure, but when attempting to create a static closure
There's definitely similarity, but I would say it sits somewhere between the
two. Rather than reference a partial method call, or create a closure for a
method, you're delaying a method call. Or rather, referencing a method. We have
the ::class pseudo property, so I see this like an equivalent,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 1:16 PM Ollie Read wrote:
> Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that it automatically binds.
>
> My second suggestion for how to achieve this does require some sort of
> automation. If you create a closure from Str::someMethod($arg1, $arg2)
> where someMethod isn't static, it
> On 1/19/23 18:43, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
> > You're right, we'll try to improve the wording and provide a handful of
> > examples. Essentially, $callingScope should contain the class name of
> > the calling scope, so the place where the magic method was called. When
> > the calling scope is not a
Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that it automatically binds.
My second suggestion for how to achieve this does require some sort of
automation. If you create a closure from Str::someMethod($arg1, $arg2) where
someMethod isn't static, it should create a closure with the signature fn(Str
$object,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 4:39 PM Ollie Read wrote:
>
> You are absolutely correct. I guess the solution would be to handle it
> differently in this case.
>
> Creating a closure from a static method would be fine, as it creates a static
> closure, but when attempting to create a static closure
You are absolutely correct. I guess the solution would be to handle it
differently in this case.
Creating a closure from a static method would be fine, as it creates a static
closure, but when attempting to create a static closure from a non-static
method, it would instead return a closure
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 at 19:44, Jordan LeDoux wrote:
> I don't see a section in the RFC about JIT or anything related to OpCache,
> but I know from experience with the Operator Overloads RFC that there are
> several architecture specific assembly optimizations for ++ and --. Have
> these been
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 at 18:28, Mark Baker wrote:
> The documentation page consistently uses the word Increment and
> Decrement, not Add 1 and Subtract 1.
>
> Developers who read the documentation should be aware of the Perl
> convention when dealing with alphabetic strings, and should expect that
17 matches
Mail list logo
