Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105198
Return-Path: <php-lists@koalephant.com>
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 22951 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2019 12:38:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail1.25mail.st) (206.123.115.54)
  by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2019 12:38:16 -0000
Received: from [10.0.1.70] (unknown [49.48.240.244])
	by mail1.25mail.st (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E940C60514;
	Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:35:13 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
In-Reply-To: <CAMuFt-7b2t83qmJW_-eGo8kte4Vb07XQVYkf0FcJ=9FCyON=-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 16:35:10 +0700
Cc: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <9C232925-ECA1-4DB3-91A5-FE76C3BA1F4A@koalephant.com>
References: <CAF+90c9YZcrquGfS4h3x1a+codkCFLarAThsOXcN69RCTvbAFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c_keZTbMTuDO+9WRa53MsYxbNxkMO_pxGyymGnxCp691g@mail.gmail.com>
 <582b57dc-42a0-582b-9471-2ede97ba584a@telia.com>
 <CAF+90c-1uw-iuW9DAp4jukRehmZ11x=qMAEsAfEXEs5-A-pbig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALKiJKoYwkrJdFbLCbLWTftDmPWSzZYS8AW3+WCG7+ny+g2mFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMuFt-7b2t83qmJW_-eGo8kte4Vb07XQVYkf0FcJ=9FCyON=-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Hickman <robehickman@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Arrow functions / short closures
From: php-lists@koalephant.com (Stephen Reay)


> On 10 Apr 2019, at 15:59, Robert Hickman <robehickman@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>> I'd just like to amplify this mention of 3rd party tooling: if we go =
with
>> something which requires complex lexer/parser rules, then every =
editor,
>> IDE, and static analysis tool will need to also work with that =
syntax.
>>=20
>=20
> Is this actually a problem? Don't these tools make use of existing
> parsers like 'php parser', thus the cost is lower than initially
> apparent?
>=20
> --=20
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>=20

This seems like a risky thing to assume =E2=80=9Cit=E2=80=99ll be =
fine=E2=80=9D about.

I=E2=80=99d like to add my (non-voting) voice in favour of the `fn(=E2=80=A6=
)` syntax. I don=E2=80=99t know that I=E2=80=99d get a lot of use out of =
short closures anyway, but I=E2=80=99d at least like it to remain =
readable on the occasion I might use them, or (more likely) work on =
something where someone else uses them.

I question (loudly) any view that less characters is automatically =
improves readability. I=E2=80=99ve yet to see a project anywhere that =
suffered overrun or saw low productivity because developers were busy =
typing/reading parenthesis around argument lists or keywords.