Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105165
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c9YZcrquGfS4h3x1a+codkCFLarAThsOXcN69RCTvbAFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c_keZTbMTuDO+9WRa53MsYxbNxkMO_pxGyymGnxCp691g@mail.gmail.com> <582b57dc-42a0-582b-9471-2ede97ba584a@telia.com>
In-Reply-To: <582b57dc-42a0-582b-9471-2ede97ba584a@telia.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 12:19:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c-1uw-iuW9DAp4jukRehmZ11x=qMAEsAfEXEs5-A-pbig@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Larsson?= <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>
Cc: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a9136a0586164a04"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Arrow functions / short closures
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--000000000000a9136a0586164a04
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 8:56 AM Bj=C3=B6rn Larsson <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.co=
m>
wrote:

> Den 2019-04-08 kl. 16:06, skrev Nikita Popov:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 4:56 PM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi internals,
> >>
> >> Motivated by the recent list comprehensions RFC, I think it's time we
> took
> >> another look at short closures:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/arrow_functions_v2
> >>
> >> This is based on a previous (withdrawn) proposal by Levi & Bob. It use=
s
> >> the syntax
> >>
> >>      fn($x) =3D> $x * $multiplier
> >>
> >> and implicit by-value variable binding. This example is roughly
> equivalent
> >> to:
> >>
> >>      function($x) use($multiplier) { return $x * $multiplier; }
> >>
> >> The RFC contains a detailed discussion of syntax choices and binding
> modes.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Nikita
> >>
> > Heads up: I plan to start voting on this RFC tomorrow if nothing new
> comes
> > up.
> >
> > Most of the discussion was (as expected) about the choice of syntax.
> > Ultimately I think there are many reasonable choices we can make here,
> but
> > we should stick to a specific proposal for the purposes of the RFC vote=
.
> > None of the given arguments convinced me that some other syntax is
> > *strictly* better than the proposed fn($x, $y) =3D> $x*$y -- it's more =
a
> > matter of some choices being slightly better in one case and slightly
> worse
> > in another. My personal runner-up would be \($x, $y) =3D> $x*$y, but I
> > suspect that there are some people who are more strongly biased against
> > "sigil salad" than I am...
> >
> > Nikita
> Hi,
>
> I recall that the perception of the =3D=3D> syntax in the Hacklang user
> community was quite positive. Of course it was implementation
> difficulties. Are they still to cumbersome in PHP?
>
> Personally I prefer that one being more readable or the \ one.
> Anyway, glad to see that short closures finally is on the road
> again!
>

The =3D=3D> syntax is the other one I implemented (
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/3945). The implementation is based on
lexer lookahead, which is ugly but still manageable. I haven't seen much
support for this variant in this discussion though. And of course, if
there's no strong preference for =3D=3D>, I'd rather go with the variant th=
at
is easier for us (and all 3rd party tooling) to support from a technical
perspective.

Nikita

--000000000000a9136a0586164a04--