Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104664
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a70baca7-f0af-49de-9cf9-5421e42e0a0c@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a70baca7-f0af-49de-9cf9-5421e42e0a0c@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:54:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJW__o31wn8R4oXq2U-G+6VmXTKLuRvYg2zVD4bLXvUuoDxmVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Draft: Comprehensions
From: kalle@php.net (Kalle Sommer Nielsen)

Hi

Den s=C3=B8n. 10. mar. 2019 kl. 23.45 skrev Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldt=
ech.com>:
>
> Hello, peoples.  I know it's been discussed once or twice before on the l=
ist, many years ago, but not recently.  I therefore feel OK putting forth t=
he following draft proposal for Comprehensions, aka "compact generators", i=
n PHP:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/comprehensions

While I think believe the RFC has great intentions, I am not a fan by
any means to introduce convoluted syntaxes like this into PHP, I think
it is rather hard to read vs the gain of saving a few key strokes. I
think that both the shorthand closures and this makes PHP code
potentially even harder to read and I would prefer we did not add such
essential sugar where you need to understand the semantics very well
to understand what a piece of foreign code may do, in what order (like
the no yield example given).

One more thing that kinda "annoys" me / what I base my above statement
on is; when reading some of the example is that the code examples
given, as in the code inside a Comprehension does not look very
PHP-ish besides the $-sigil and I do not like the idea of having "two"
syntaxes for PHP where one is only available in a very narrow-,
specific context and I feel it would be prone to potential errors.

Another thing that has been mentioned by multiple people now is the
for-vs-foreach; If it is a foreach, which you mention in the RFC then
it should be so, not for. A little background on where I am coming
from here; I think it is great that we look at other languages and
technologies when designing PHP and adding more features the language,
however while I do believe it is an important point to keep cross
language consistency, I do think that consistency with PHP itself is
more important, which I believe too, is the reason for the expression
for using foreach in this context comes from (not only from my PoV).

--=20
regards,

Kalle Sommer Nielsen
kalle@php.net