Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:112203
Return-Path: <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 92124 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2020 02:50:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5)
by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2020 02:50:50 -0000
Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D81180508
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 18:12:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,
SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Virus: No
X-Envelope-From: <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 18:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44])
by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28B6340
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 21:12:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap26 ([10.202.2.76])
by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 07 Nov 2020 21:12:22 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to
:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy
:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=OANlu8
qeNo/tXFgPbWhx5c+2i/2/8dw8/dYagcrYv8k=; b=CVbs4uBfxIvFnWaiOfRCIo
fIyISGMNhuZWrme33ZhcUlUQDeyWfu3Gdj6tFI2xVz00w5BDN6Vp+0eMDgCxo0/C
G7dyT3WQ5+Hz90tD87YuVlLO1VNDcUxaqCo5rAuck0G1fEqc7b/aVBwc8nqueRa8
/vwXV4MmctrD6ILB3XuWFjTt58qF3cnU7jtpCdSAyAJXCwnNTPFG9S72AEN3qF1Y
pTqadXeLJpr1N6fQdcBfTtSjTVp6o5rmnTojzZqqT9qb/4duZnMoT/IKRPkCQL5c
BTL7iWvzeVER6xpS0MkKDl0mUDtGO1CaF0KJwlZLM5ciw1NLz/ESsOJ8Z8FmJnqQ
==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:BlSnX2EJI1V3AkmaIHF0hza-drsu05KZWrMPybRQ9w-9U6NaZL8BYQ>
<xme:BlSnX3VAusXrQW0gdFLljzr8KXvVKc05NlDlBiaqW-wiGvI3P0PWEIbO1EoKpwiWk
L-yrq6_4-FYtA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudduvddggeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf
fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen
uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne
cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdfnrghr
rhihucfirghrfhhivghlugdfuceolhgrrhhrhiesghgrrhhfihgvlhguthgvtghhrdgtoh
hmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvgfekgfduhffhjeeufeefgffhgfejvefgfeekkeek
hfeluefgteejheekgefhveenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdhphhhprd
hnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhep
lhgrrhhrhiesghgrrhhfihgvlhguthgvtghhrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:BlSnXwLocl9io4unpQ_mzjr0wMq9yg4yOIeYNnLi3dbVqSQuMl2lww>
<xmx:BlSnXwEBGsP7fzOFN59gjq3LPN-ojssKfgVkvqjTqJX0BkhYMebF8A>
<xmx:BlSnX8UXKXbTczGu-hmkFlFw4JeDyme3fEvUQ8UaEtjZ9-ax5MG9mA>
<xmx:BlSnX9UacklJuw3Yt_0yZClS1vtzJWIQQSHz5o-2Xl2A561vauIjuw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501)
id 0542C14200A2; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 21:12:22 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-570-gba0a262-fm-20201106.001-gba0a2623
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <57bb761c-48d1-41ab-9c91-d9ada8cfe26e@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To:
<CAB-ec3RSniFKuHY6-oEHcoAAzs404jBU1zfOUo5GvM=f7kTN6A@mail.gmail.com>
References:
<CAB-ec3RSniFKuHY6-oEHcoAAzs404jBU1zfOUo5GvM=f7kTN6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2020 20:12:01 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Support for <func>::function syntax
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")
On Sat, Nov 7, 2020, at 5:41 PM, as@php.net wrote:
> Hello internals,
>
> Looking for feedback on the idea of supporting `::function` syntax (or
> `::fn`) for consistency with existing `::class` syntax:
>
> $arr = ['apple'];
> print_r(array_map(strtoupper::function, $arr));
>
> (Apologies if this has already been discussed. Hard to search for
> colon-colon-function.)
>
> Benefits in my view are readability and potential use in static analysis.
> Downsides (as implemented in proof-of-concept) are that it can be
> needlessly littered in a lot of places, and that it breaks class consts
> named `function`. I'd vote against it in its current state, but if people
> like the general idea maybe the drawbacks can be addressed with a better
> implementation.
>
> Examples:
> https://gist.github.com/adsr/2c0b9243986418af3cecf8046657304b
>
> Proof-of-concept:
> https://github.com/adsr/php-src/commit/07bb24243022ccef5823f6977d231f3535a48a07.patch
>
> Adam
There was some discussion earlier this year, although if memory serves it was in a thread whose name would not be helpful for searching. Sorry, can't help there. :-/ (Maybe it was in the threads talking about ::class notation on objects? Just a guess.)
Working strictly from memory:
* There was a lot of support in concept, but not universal.
* There was a lot of concern that ::function was just too damned long to type, so plenty of bikeshedding about shorter names.
* There's another RFC proposed that is currently stalled due to lack of time to add partial function application, which would kinda allow something similar-ish through a back door: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/partial_function_application . That said, I don't think they would conflict so I'd be fine with both happening.
+1 from me in concept.
--Larry Garfield