Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108544
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
In-Reply-To: <10FCCCED-B8AE-4394-91B3-0FEB448E2398@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:06:25 -0500
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <D368D433-A2AE-4C05-9341-A6F0502BF454@newclarity.net>
References: <CAD5P3=JwFK03L-DWJYaa0dbBj1chbef_=K-vyawLNeoAz7dHjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALSrLtYm+TSEwo+05JC6LXrQsfzb32pQ24Y7gDUmm-7+NwYi8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpm43=hoCvsskq2qyhB3yVxntLAYC8hQjQwd9dnvQ=GKkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD5P3=L8bQ4bp5i5f=SdOP-=Wmn6TSj6+4Jzw76WRwJ=89evtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c-myY2NeKcaTRH3zDcwxRC95RhKnm1MPTGN68WUq4RPAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKy-NwDmpN_5Zet8Oz9JLVzu11PmODP6byBYuJry3TUvbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CE981907-0CDD-421F-BC01-1B3F0E95B199@newclarity.net>
 <ebc970d9-8c70-9563-1792-fd8c7ef67f2f@gmail.com>
 <DE2D0FCB-4C39-43F4-B6B6-B5796271EB0E@newclarity.net>
 <10FCCCED-B8AE-4394-91B3-0FEB448E2398@gmail.com>
To: Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

> On Feb 13, 2020, at 2:33 AM, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On 13 February 2020 03:33:32 GMT+00:00, Mike Schinkel =
<mike@newclarity.net> wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 2020, at 5:47 PM, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> On 12/02/2020 03:58, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>>>> Returning a_closure_  instead of a string would be providing a
>> feature we_already_  have instead of one we do_not_  have.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Not really, because you still need a way to get the fully-qualified
>> name of the function. This is not valid:
>>>=20
>>> namespace MyVendor\Something\Foo;
>>> function bar() {}
>>>=20
>>> \Closure::fromCallable('bar'); # Error: tries to resolve function
>> '\bar'
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Why would ::function return a short name instead of the =
fully-qualified
>> name?=20
>=20
>=20
> I never said it would; the intent of this example was to show what is =
possible in current PHP, in response to your comment about returning a =
closure being "a feature we already have".
> The key new feature being proposed is a way to resolve an unqualified =
function name based on current namespace and imports, without calling =
the function. The open question is whether the result of that should be =
expressed as a string or as a Closure object, but in current PHP the =
feature doesn't exist at all.

Let me clarify for you what I was trying to say.

1. IF foo::function returns a name string THEN using =
Closure::fromCallable( foo::function ) can provide a closure.

2. IF foo::function returns a closure THEN how to we get the name =
string?

Hence we already have a way to get the closure _if_ ::function returns a =
name string, but we would *not* have a way to get the name string if =
::function returns a closure. =20

IOW, we can already derive a closure if we have a name, but we cannot =
derive a name if we have a closure.

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say when I said "we already =
have it."

-Mike=