Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108550
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
In-Reply-To: <d494ed31-f5c5-4946-a7f8-75a03027a0ee@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:12:47 -0500
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <8D1FD9A3-C0F0-4B70-8D6C-F85275E4D367@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>
 <D368D433-A2AE-4C05-9341-A6F0502BF454@newclarity.net>
 <CALKiJKrHKiY0-4=ihES5Uw4OUinAmyNRaiNqQrX-x3Gj74mWDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2C404984-AD76-4CDF-8E1A-04DF8EF024DD@newclarity.net>
 <d494ed31-f5c5-4946-a7f8-75a03027a0ee@www.fastmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

> On Feb 13, 2020, at 1:48 PM, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> =
wrote:
>> But since I seem to be in the minority of caring about the name, let =
me=20
>> propose the following which was influenced by Larry Garfield's most=20=

>> recent post.  Since it seems that people want the convenience of a=20
>> short notation to get a closure, how about this:
>>=20
>> function foo{}
>>=20
>> foo::function  =E2=80=94 Returns name of function
>> foo::fn  =E2=80=94 Returns closure for function=20
>>=20
>> Since using `fn` creates anonymous function closures it kinda makes=20=

>> sense that `::fn` would return a closure.
>>=20
>> -Mike
>=20
> thinking-face-emoji.gif.  I could be convinced of that.  It seems like =
"both" is a possible solution, but my concern would be someone using one =
of them in a case where either works, inadvertently, when the callee is =
expecting just one.  Eg, getting into the habit of using foo::fn, and =
then using it on a builder routine that chokes "later" when it tries to =
serialize something.

True.=20

But it would be a really high bar to say we can only add new features if =
we can completely protect the developer from themselves.  At some point =
we have to assume programmers are adults, or at least can take =
responsibility for learning how the language works.=20

-Mike
P.S. OTOH, if the routine that requires ::function and not ::fn were to =
type hint the parameter, it would choke with an applicable error =
message.=