Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108560
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 08:23:06 +0000
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <938FDD44-1F60-4FE1-B0F1-E70284F5F2D2@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> <0BE8FC1E-A9BF-4A2A-9CA5-59BEE1245632@gmail.com> <938FDD44-1F60-4FE1-B0F1-E70284F5F2D2@newclarity.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
CC: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <B193495C-ECE5-4169-9B28-A1CE57548C6C@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

On 14 February 2020 00:39:15 GMT+00:00, Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity=2Ene=
t> wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 2020, at 7:24 PM, Rowan Tommins <rowan=2Ecollins@gmail=2Ecom=
>
>wrote:
>>=20
>> An idea I had earlier which might solve some of them is if what was
>returned was not a normal Closure instance, but a new class like
>FunctionReference=2E It could then "remember" the name of the function
>wrapped, and implement __toString, Serializable, etc=2E It could inherit
>from Closure, so instanceof checks would work, and bindTo would return
>a normal Closure=2E I'm sure there's downsides I haven't thought of yet,
>but I thought I'd throw the idea into the mix=2E
>
>I thought about that too, and mentioned it yesterday in a reply[1] to
>you on this list=2E
>
>Here is the link to the Gist with the hypothetical code using such a
>concept:=20
>
>- https://gist=2Egithub=2Ecom/mikeschinkel/78684d708358e1d101e319c7a2fdef=
9c


What I had in mind was a combination of that and the existing Closure clas=
s, so:

$ref =3D foo::fn;
$ref(); // run the function
$ref->name; // access extra metadata
$ref->bindTo($whatever); // get a new Closure with a bound context


That would also combine well with one of the proposed bracket style syntax=
es that let you specify methods more naturally:

{foo}->name; // qualified name of local function
{Foo::bar}; // closure for a static method
{$this->baz}->bindTo($that); // closure for a method of current class rebo=
und to a different object


Regards,

--=20
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]