Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113745
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <88c9eb5f-f80c-4869-b7f8-1b58b9e2eaa3@www.fastmail.com>
 <CAF+90c9PRmK1FM_uUO3qMhhvMybY4z_aZkmMO53TVfuy--U32g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKxTgHnzXKwkHi4qgJewY86vWFehrhN39fyrrK5KWNVvig@mail.gmail.com> <4DC3B66E-A91A-4AA9-8872-8EE9DE92C2D4@cschneid.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DC3B66E-A91A-4AA9-8872-8EE9DE92C2D4@cschneid.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:38:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKxTJKroSGpUiCvLJKoaHBWF1oQa03zs02jHfRCviPfPLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christian Schneider <cschneid@cschneid.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c87b8d05be4bc6ad"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Auto-capture multi-line closures and short
 functions take 2
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--000000000000c87b8d05be4bc6ad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 1:34 PM Christian Schneider <cschneid@cschneid.com>
wrote:

> Am 24.03.2021 um 18:15 schrieb Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com>:
> > I guess my one question would be why we didn't support auto-capture when
> we
> > first implemented anonymous functions, and if there was a reason, why
> does
> > that no longer apply?
>
> My guess would be that it was seen as one of PHP's big strength that
> variables don't just leak into other contexts but that it has to be done
> explicitly.
>
> Now with arrow functions both the benefit of auto-capturing is bigger
> compared to the actual function 'body', it normally only spans a line or
> two and (for me personally) the absence of {} also kind of make the leakage
> fit my mental model more easily.
>
> For these reasons I think I lean towards -1 for both
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-functions <
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-functions> and
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/auto-capture-closure <
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/auto-capture-closure> as they add more syntax
> without (IMHO) a huge benefit.
>
> You might be able to convince me otherwise though ;-)
>

I don't really have anything against auto-capture, was just kind of
curious. I guess it is somewhat similar to how x = function(){...} and x =
() => {} work in javascript with respect to "this".

I do think it makes sense to only do auto-capture on the short syntax, so
that you still have the ability to fallback to the long syntax if you don't
want auto-capture, since there are definitely use-cases where it wouldn't
be make sense.
,

> - Chris
>
>

-- 
Chase Peeler
chasepeeler@gmail.com

--000000000000c87b8d05be4bc6ad--