Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100478 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98842 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2017 01:31:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Sep 2017 01:31:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=fsb@thefsb.org; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=fsb@thefsb.org; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain thefsb.org designates 108.166.43.91 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: fsb@thefsb.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.91 smtp91.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Received: from [108.166.43.91] ([108.166.43.91:41335] helo=smtp91.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 16/63-10715-C6443B95 for ; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 21:31:25 -0400 Received: from smtp12.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp12.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5704CC0293; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 21:31:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Auth-ID: fsb@thefsb.org Received: by smtp12.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fsb-AT-thefsb.org) with ESMTPSA id 27077C013B; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 21:31:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: fsb@thefsb.org Received: from [192.168.33.1] (c-66-30-62-12.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [66.30.62.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.7.12); Fri, 08 Sep 2017 21:31:22 -0400 To: "Andrea Faulds" , internals@lists.php.net Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 21:31:10 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <82.32.10715.A8E03B95@pb1.pair.com> References: <82.32.10715.A8E03B95@pb1.pair.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; markup=markdown X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347) Subject: Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Operator functions From: fsb@thefsb.org ("Tom Worster") On 8 Sep 2017, at 17:41, Andrea Faulds wrote: > Hi everyone! > > Here's an RFC for a small, simple, self-contained feature with no > backwards-compatibility breaks and which in fact doesn't even touch > the language's syntax (it's 50%+1 eligible!) but which could make PHP > a bit more expressive and consistent, especially with potential later > features. It even has a test designed to impose minimal maintenance > burden while testing a fairly large possibility space! > > Anyway, the RFC in question is this: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/operator_functions > > Please tell me what you think and suggest any potential improvements > or anything you think might have been an omission. Yes! I have wanted this for many years. In the first programming language in which I achieved real proficiency, this was vernacular. It would make me happy to return to it in the language I now use most. An anonymous function that turns an operator into three lines looks dumb and makes me sad. Tom