Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:112099
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-502-gfef6c88-fm-20201019.001-gfef6c888
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1fa2a1ab-ab11-4725-9df0-dcdfb3860af6@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d5e8f7c3-a494-c038-54d2-0d2ee708bc01@gmail.com>
References: <eb143f8b-b242-47bb-9858-e6150dd7aea4@www.fastmail.com>
 <812317f5-dd87-497b-b483-bc3b7f3c2e7d@www.fastmail.com>
 <d5e8f7c3-a494-c038-54d2-0d2ee708bc01@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:59:41 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Short-function syntax
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020, at 5:17 PM, Rowan Tommins wrote:

> 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...

Sara mentioned that as well.  I can see the appeal, but at the same time I foresee that leading to a question about when to use which, divergent coding standards with different people doing it differently and different projects eventually adopting different standards, eventually a PSR that attempts to standardize it, probably by proposing the same "when it's a short-function of some kind" rule, and only some projects adopt it.  Basically, a mess.

Whatever we do, it should be language-consistent so that there's no bikeshed potential.

--Larry Garfield