Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108552
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-802-g7a41c81-fmstable-20200203v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <53f3c75f-d79f-4029-9b43-4d6087ac3195@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <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>
 <8D1FD9A3-C0F0-4B70-8D6C-F85275E4D367@newclarity.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:55:19 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020, at 2:12 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> > 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, le=
t 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 li=
ke "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, an=
d then using it on a builder routine that chokes "later" when it tries t=
o serialize something.
>=20
> True.=20
>=20
> But it would be a really high bar to say we can only add new features=20=

> if we can completely protect the developer from themselves.  At some=20=

> point we have to assume programmers are adults, or at least can take=20=

> responsibility for learning how the language works.=20

Strawman argument.  Nothing can "completely" protect developers from the=
mselves; not even Rust. :-)  But features should still be designed in su=
ch a way as to be hard to screw up.  Not impossible, hard.

The question I pose is whether "both" would be "hard enough" to get wron=
g that it's not going to cause more confusion than it solves.  I don't k=
now the answer to that question.

--Larry Garfield