Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:112098
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <eb143f8b-b242-47bb-9858-e6150dd7aea4@www.fastmail.com>
 <812317f5-dd87-497b-b483-bc3b7f3c2e7d@www.fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <d5e8f7c3-a494-c038-54d2-0d2ee708bc01@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 23:17:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <812317f5-dd87-497b-b483-bc3b7f3c2e7d@www.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Short-function syntax
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

On 21/10/2020 21:53, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> A while back, Nikita mentioned that it should now be easy to offer an
>> abbreviated syntax for functions that are just a single expression.  I
>> decided to take a crack at it and it turns out he was right.  I thus
>> offer this RFC:
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-functions


I like it. It fits nicely with my mental model of arrow functions as 
being special syntax for "functionising" a single expression. It may 
appeal less to people who see arrow functions as "the better way to 
write closures", and are hoping to extend them with full procedural bodies.


> There's been some discussion on the PR that I'm looping back here for completeness, mainly about using "function" vs "fn" for short named functions.


You could list that under Open Issues on the RFC.

It occurred to me recently that maybe we could make "function" and "fn" 
synonyms everywhere, i.e. make both "$double = function($x) => $x *2;" 
and "$double = fn($x) use ($x) { return $x *2; };" valid. I'm not sure 
if that's desirable, or even if there's a reason it can't be done, but 
it would mean you don't have to make a decision on this RFC...


Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins (né Collins)
[IMSoP]