Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

"Andrea Faulds" wrote in message news:19.45.38491.677d4...@pb1.pair.com... Hi David, David Rodrigues wrote: Hello folks! I just not understand why "function" should be abbreviated. It's about "how less character better"? I don't see it too much on PHP. I guess that is more simple keep what

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

> And then there's the extra typing and visual space taken up, which is not > something to dismiss entirely. Also, as someone else mentioned this syntax > *seems* like it would support nesting. Compare the following: > > $x = function($a) => function($b) => function($c) => $a * $b * $c; > $y =

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

2017-02-04 21:49 GMT+01:00 Larry Garfield : > On 02/03/2017 11:53 AM, Levi Morrison wrote: > >> >> Thanks to everyone who has participated in the discussion thus far. >>> Primarily the feedback has been directed at the `fn` keyword. Let me >>> provide two benefits and

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On 02/03/2017 11:53 AM, Levi Morrison wrote: Thanks to everyone who has participated in the discussion thus far. Primarily the feedback has been directed at the `fn` keyword. Let me provide two benefits and drawbacks of using `fn` as a keyword: 1. `fn` is searchable in search engines and

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > >> fn(params) => expr >> |params| => expr >> >> I look forward to more discussion! >> > > It's unfortunate we cannot have HHVM/Hack syntax now > https://docs.hhvm.com/hack/lambdas/introduction > > but both >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

Hi Levi, On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Levi Morrison wrote: > One more thing: I'd like to re-emphasize that the syntax that > JavaScript uses and the one that HHVM/Hack uses are ambiguous in the > current class of our grammar. The following will not work unless we > move to a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

Den 2017-02-03 kl. 21:46, skrev Levi Morrison: On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Niklas Keller wrote: 2017-02-03 21:23 GMT+01:00 Levi Morrison : On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: Hi David, David Rodrigues wrote: Hello folks!

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On 03.02.2017 at 18:53, Levi Morrison wrote: > One more thing: I'd like to re-emphasize that the syntax that > JavaScript uses and the one that HHVM/Hack uses are ambiguous in the > current class of our grammar. The following will not work unless we > move to a more powerful grammar and parser

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

2017-02-03 23:26 GMT+01:00 Michael Morris : > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Niklas Keller wrote: > > > > > > There are more drawbacks to that syntax like no parameters looking pretty > > weird: || => > > > > > I can't think of a valid example of an arrow

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On 2/3/2017 11:26 PM, Michael Morris wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Niklas Keller wrote: >> >> >> There are more drawbacks to that syntax like no parameters looking pretty >> weird: || => >> >> > I can't think of a valid example of an arrow function without any

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Niklas Keller wrote: > > > There are more drawbacks to that syntax like no parameters looking pretty > weird: || => > > I can't think of a valid example of an arrow function without any arguments at all. These functions are very simple iterators

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:34 PM, wrote: > I like the suggested syntax. The only drawback I see is that it inhibits > the future addition of union types for closures: > > |int | float $x| => $x > > Adding parentheses of course resolves the issue but looks a bit awkward: >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Niklas Keller wrote: > 2017-02-03 21:23 GMT+01:00 Levi Morrison : >> >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: >> > Hi David, >> > >> > David Rodrigues wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello folks! >> >> I just not

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

2017-02-03 21:23 GMT+01:00 Levi Morrison : > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > David Rodrigues wrote: > >> > >> Hello folks! > >> I just not understand why "function" should be abbreviated. It's about > >> "how > >> less

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

I like the suggested syntax. The only drawback I see is that it inhibits the future addition of union types for closures:     |int | float $x| => $x Adding parentheses of course resolves the issue but looks a bit awkward:     |(int | float) $x| => $x Apart from that I have nothing to complain

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > Hi David, > > David Rodrigues wrote: >> >> Hello folks! >> I just not understand why "function" should be abbreviated. It's about >> "how >> less character better"? I don't see it too much on PHP. I guess that is >> more simple

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

Hi David, David Rodrigues wrote: Hello folks! I just not understand why "function" should be abbreviated. It's about "how less character better"? I don't see it too much on PHP. I guess that is more simple keep what exists current "function", that all knows about (that should be better than the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:46 AM, David Rodrigues wrote: > Or even, I too don't know why just ($x) => is an issue. There some possible > conflict why that? Yes, this conflicts with existing syntax. The following code snippets are valid today: [($x) => $x + $y]

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

Hello folks! I just not understand why "function" should be abbreviated. It's about "how less character better"? I don't see it too much on PHP. I guess that is more simple keep what exists current "function", that all knows about (that should be better than the next example): $mapped =

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Levi Morrison wrote: > > > To that end, I'd like to gauge interest in a pure syntax based > > alternative that is similar to Rust and Ruby. > > Instead of: > > > > fn(params) => expr > > > > What about: > > > > |params| => expr > Looks

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Levi Morrison wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Levi Morrison wrote: >> Bob Weinand and I are happy to announce that the [Arrow Functions][1] >> RFC is moving into the public discussion phase. We have been >> collaborating

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Levi Morrison wrote: > Bob Weinand and I are happy to announce that the [Arrow Functions][1] > RFC is moving into the public discussion phase. We have been > collaborating on this RFC for many months now and finally have a > proposal we are happy

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Levi Morrison wrote: > Bob Weinand and I are happy to announce that the [Arrow Functions][1] > RFC is moving into the public discussion phase. We have been > collaborating on this RFC for many months now and finally have a > proposal we are happy

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Rowan Collins wrote: > On 01/02/2017 20:17, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > >> You probably think of $var as being a local scope variable here, >> but really it isn't. It is an imported variable that happened to not exist >> in the outer scope and

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On 01/02/2017 20:17, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: You probably think of $var as being a local scope variable here, but really it isn't. It is an imported variable that happened to not exist in the outer scope and it was assigned a value in the inner scope, but that assignment can't leak back out so it

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Bruce Weirdan wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:45:50AM -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > The reason it is feasible to do this for single-expression closures in > this > > short form syntax is that you don't typically need a local scope at all

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:45:50AM -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > The reason it is feasible to do this for single-expression closures in this > short form syntax is that you don't typically need a local scope at all for > these short closures and the syntax doesn't convey the idea that you would >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > That's the idea. I'd prefer it if auto-capture was not restricted to > single-expression functions (“arrow functions”). Though arrow functions > make most sense with auto-capture, it doesn't need to be stricted to them.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On 31/01/2017 20:41, Andrea Faulds wrote: That's the idea. I'd prefer it if auto-capture was not restricted to single-expression functions (“arrow functions”). Though arrow functions make most sense with auto-capture, it doesn't need to be stricted to them. I respectfully disagree

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

Hi Marc, Marc Bennewitz wrote: - Also I like the "use" keyword you have to define your variables -> Would it be helpful to allow "function () use (*) {}" to inline all available variables? I did think of that, but it's not as concise as not having to specify `use` at all. You could

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

Hi, David Walker wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 18:12 Andrea Faulds wrote: Is it necessary to introduce a new keyword, fn? I think you'd get a similar benefit from: function($x) => $arr[$x] Likewise, is it necessary to restrict auto-capture to the => syntax? Couldn't we

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Levi Morrison wrote: > Bob Weinand and I are happy to announce that the [Arrow Functions][1] > RFC is moving into the public discussion phase. We have been > collaborating on this RFC for many months now and finally have a > proposal we are happy

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On 31/01/17 05:53, Stephen Reay wrote: > Hi Andrea, All, > >> On 31 Jan 2017, at 08:12, Andrea Faulds wrote: >> >> Is it necessary to introduce a new keyword, fn? >> >> I think you'd get a similar benefit from: >> >>function($x) => $arr[$x] >> >> Likewise, is it necessary to

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

Am 31.01.2017 um 05:53 schrieb Stephen Reay: Hi Andrea, All, On 31 Jan 2017, at 08:12, Andrea Faulds wrote: Is it necessary to introduce a new keyword, fn? I think you'd get a similar benefit from: function($x) => $arr[$x] Likewise, is it necessary to restrict

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

Hi Andrea, All, > On 31 Jan 2017, at 08:12, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > Is it necessary to introduce a new keyword, fn? > > I think you'd get a similar benefit from: > >function($x) => $arr[$x] > > Likewise, is it necessary to restrict auto-capture to the => syntax? Couldn't >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 18:12 Andrea Faulds wrote: > Hi Levi, > > Levi Morrison wrote: > > Here is an example of an existing closure: > > > > function ($x) use ($arr) { > > return $arr[$x]; > > } > > > > This RFC proposes syntax and semantics to simplify this common

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

Hi Levi, Levi Morrison wrote: Here is an example of an existing closure: function ($x) use ($arr) { return $arr[$x]; } This RFC proposes syntax and semantics to simplify this common usage to: fn($x) => $arr[$x] Is it necessary to introduce a new keyword, fn? I think