Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105938
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOv67gumG=mdj1Nr=uXtRTSdxGOMEu8=TZizdpgf5AsoaRVGDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sJX+cAfUrMiGA3_9drMS=+fCVvySNroy0BfNF1VcRxwFg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyq6sJX+cAfUrMiGA3_9drMS=+fCVvySNroy0BfNF1VcRxwFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 00:03:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFPFaMJ=VDu1q0toXUPoLNh77+6dHg8pHNOs2cTwGvEF1aOdhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>
Cc: Wes <netmo.php@gmail.com>, PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000088726d058b63f770"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Alternative "use" syntax for Closures
From: george.banyard@gmail.com ("G. P. B.")

--00000000000088726d058b63f770
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 23:57, Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019, 23:53 Wes <netmo.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello PHP, I just published
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/alternative-closure-use-syntax
> >
> > I would love your opinion on this
> >
> > I know it seems overkill and wrong to have two different syntaxes for the
> > same thing, but I really believe that's all we need to fix one of the
> most
> > hated PHP syntax bits.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Wes
> >
>
> Tbh, I love the fact that closures have explicitly imported scope: makes it
> clear when something is starting to have too many responsibilities.
>


I personally don't really mind the current way of doing imports and I agree
with Marco that it makes clean when a closure tries to do too much.

However, I kind of like/understand the syntax proposed so this is more a +0
for me than anything else.

Best regards


George P. Banyard

--00000000000088726d058b63f770--