Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105285 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 11317 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2019 15:06:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO v-smtpout3.han.skanova.net) (81.236.60.156) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2019 15:06:22 -0000 Received: from [192.168.7.8] ([213.64.245.126]) by cmsmtp with ESMTPA id G0LshLiTMM0W3G0LthaeFl; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:04:45 +0200 To: Benjamin Morel , Nikita Popov Cc: PHP internals References: <2abd0f71-f116-bf3f-7467-88bdc895d057@telia.com> Message-ID: <0cdcd353-f5d1-0d3a-eb0b-479311e2971f@telia.com> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:04:46 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfP3+3K5r2e3iXPONX/DCBIGeLjetyiNjbS09Mfg7TorGtkC3Ej1KZBuzYob+WR00yecsgs+XNRGFLnWXkr8F63SBHvLzUXj3KDetUKvwLCyERN8efCzJ BtxfrE2rIfZtNDG5JhbjihEuSQfAHZelsBMNp3aR0IoOLBFY2Izj4CJn7QYOAHIEJQZmOUR/yQgy0dmhYCaQBVoKp6Z+8MRy3hk60hcuOTtTI2GTxvqJs0WM JxWvY/YWTHiXUGwnubnq1A== Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Arrow functions / short closures From: bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Bj=c3=b6rn_Larsson?=) Den 2019-04-15 kl. 13:48, skrev Benjamin Morel: > Even though I was originally hoping for something closer to JS syntax, > considering Nikita's summary it looks like the best contender is still > fn(), as originally proposed. > At least it looks like a function indeed, to the uninitiated. > > So FWIW, I think that a vote for the fn() syntax only still makes > sense. The risk with the 2 or 3 options is never being able to reach a > concensus: is a relative majority or an absolute majority for one of > the syntaxes acceptable, or are you required by the RFC process to get > a 2/3 majority for this vote as well? If so, considering the > discussion so far, I think this will be hard to achieve with 2 > choices, let alone with 3. > > - Ben If it lands in a secondary three way vote I would assume it's the vote getting the most votes. Otherwise the RFC could land in a limbo, getting yes on feature but no on syntax. Good to get assumption confirmed though... r//Björn L