Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> As a PHP developer, I agree with the possible confusion between `->` and >> `~>`. >> `==>` is a better choice IMHO, for its similarity with Hacklang syntax, as >> said previously. > > I'm getting a feeling the RFC

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

Hi, As a PHP developer, I agree with the possible confusion between `->` and `~>`. `==>` is a better choice IMHO, for its similarity with Hacklang syntax, as said previously. Thanks. *Julien BENOIT* *PHP & JS developer @GuestToGuest * Paris, FR.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

Den 2015-09-24 kl. 09:10, skrev Stanislav Malyshev: Hi! As a PHP developer, I agree with the possible confusion between `->` and `~>`. `==>` is a better choice IMHO, for its similarity with Hacklang syntax, as said previously. I'm getting a feeling the RFC could be more successful if syntax

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

Lester Caine wrote on 24/09/2015 08:06: So is PHP heading down the path of a compiled language even if that is hidden in some automatic cache or is it still mainly an interpreted script? PHP already is a compiled language; it just has a highly dynamic runtime engine (which is at times a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

Hi! > As a PHP developer, I agree with the possible confusion between `->` and > `~>`. > `==>` is a better choice IMHO, for its similarity with Hacklang syntax, as > said previously. I'm getting a feeling the RFC could be more successful if syntax was made a choice between ~> and ==> as a voting

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

On Sep 24, 2015 2:11 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! > > > As a PHP developer, I agree with the possible confusion between `->` and > > `~>`. > > `==>` is a better choice IMHO, for its similarity with Hacklang syntax, as > > said previously. > > I'm getting a feeling

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

Changed my vote to "no" after thinking further into it: - I don't like the usage of the tilde: `->` and `~>` are too similar and easily confused - Using `==>` would align PHP further to hacklang, which is a plus - I'm still conflicted on automatically importing all of the scope into the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

On Sep 22, 2015 10:16 PM, "Andrea Faulds" wrote: > > I am unhappy with the ~> syntax choice. As I've mentioned before, it's hard to type for many people, it looks too much like ->, and it's unnecessarily different from Hack's ==>, of which this RFC would otherwise be proposing a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

On 24/09/15 07:39, Marco Pivetta wrote: > - I'm still conflicted on automatically importing all of the scope into > the closure: while it is working for functional languages, that's where > most of the headaches come from in languages such as javascript. Isn't this the crux of some decisions?

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

On 24/09/2015 07:39, Marco Pivetta wrote: - I'm still conflicted on automatically importing all of the scope into the closure: while it is working for functional languages, that's where most of the headaches come from in languages such as javascript. The automatic import IMO isn't as much an

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

On 24 September 2015 19:21:20 BST, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> How does one then address that this RFC only covers a subset of >> Hacklang functionality when having the same operator? > >Why one should address it? PHP is a different language, and we are >under >no

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

Hi! > How does one then address that this RFC only covers a subset of > Hacklang functionality when having the same operator? Why one should address it? PHP is a different language, and we are under no obligation to completely match functionality of any other language. -- Stas Malyshev

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

Den 2015-09-24 kl. 20:21, skrev Stanislav Malyshev: Hi! How does one then address that this RFC only covers a subset of Hacklang functionality when having the same operator? Why one should address it? PHP is a different language, and we are under no obligation to completely match

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

Den 2015-09-22 kl. 17:16, skrev Andrea Faulds: Hi Bob, Bob Weinand wrote: Hey, Thanks for all your feedback in the discussion thread! So, before I start the vote, just two quick notes: I've added two notes about the statement syntax and the single variable use. Though a few people

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

On Sep 24, 2015 09:07, "Lester Caine" wrote: > > On 24/09/15 07:39, Marco Pivetta wrote: > > - I'm still conflicted on automatically importing all of the scope into > > the closure: while it is working for functional languages, that's where > > most of the headaches come from

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

Stas, On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> How does one then address that this RFC only covers a subset of >> Hacklang functionality when having the same operator? > > Why one should address it? PHP is a different language, and we are under >

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

Hi Bob, Bob Weinand wrote: Hey, Thanks for all your feedback in the discussion thread! So, before I start the vote, just two quick notes: I've added two notes about the statement syntax and the single variable use. Though a few people complained, I'm not switching to the ==> operator, as I