Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105952
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAOv67gumG=mdj1Nr=uXtRTSdxGOMEu8=TZizdpgf5AsoaRVGDg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ca91f29f-6c42-be66-a686-a09c33db2144@fischer.name>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 15:04:32 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOv67gumG=mdj1Nr=uXtRTSdxGOMEu8=TZizdpgf5AsoaRVGDg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam_score: -2.9
X-Spam_score_int: -28
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "scanner01.home", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  Hi, On 15.06.19 23:53, Wes wrote: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/alternative-closure-use-syntax
    > Thanks for the RFC and effort, [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (-2.9 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED            Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
                             [score: 0.0000]
  0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED          ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
                             See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [URIs: php.net]
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfB8DF90XMnurCbpbu+L/qZQINdguiWNWUFKi+4n+RUwsOdNW2NoEzrnHGhBuJoWlZEq/L9ERbvrUbEtneVg+A3aBLJduAaVy19pau8mBvhoiebsDz9Xe
 V2DY+8/x8+IAmBiq5p5has0VsuQMKGiNOaXLQ3uPJwQDmt3JPZE22x5u
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Alternative "use" syntax for Closures
From: markus@fischer.name (Markus Fischer)

Hi,

On 15.06.19 23:53, Wes wrote:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/alternative-closure-use-syntax
> 

Thanks for the RFC and effort,

> 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.

Technically, no versions seems better than the other.

Personally I don't see how this fixes anything but introduces two ways 
of doing the same thing.

I've never really seen people having problems with the current syntax 
but I'm not saying there aren't. The same argument can be made for all 
the array/str function and people having a hard time to remember which 
function takes theneedle/haystack and what argument position or similar 
to map/reduce/etc.

 From the RFC:
 > Specifically, it requires a lot of effort to write compared to normal 
expressions.

This are bold words: "a lot". The problem with this argument is that 
there's almost no way to properly argue for or against this. This is 
like art and creativity: it's a personal choice and some like it, some not.

Choice is nice and all, but in terms of code style it just creates an 
overhead (= decision to make which style to use) and I rather prefer 
"one true" way of doing things unless absolute necessary.

I'm -1 on introducing a 2nd syntax without clear benefits of any kind 
that I can see.

That syntax exists now for 10 years, I'd say people can and do 
accommodate and there's no need for this.

thanks,
- Markus