Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113798
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
In-Reply-To: <d65d4373-cce6-9d63-dc7f-c873c9846a74@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 22:57:17 -0400
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <E8CECB51-D0ED-4110-A145-6746344425AD@newclarity.net>
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>
 <8c72c162-83c0-7c7f-2fa7-4fbe3fb30a4a@gmail.com>
 <605bae82.1c69fb81.f49f7.d11eSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <919e30e7-3e5e-d955-7bb4-1e1b5825cdd1@gmail.com>
 <635DD146-FC6F-4991-8D2C-5A6B492722D5@newclarity.net>
 <734f12de-da98-6b76-c2fe-8682f4d177aa@gmail.com>
 <CALZWoqXZF9wegVGwGMjjVEV89zTjb-TYS87MqP36fSk-qJqD4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <daffe9ec-3163-25cc-bb52-587fbd2230bb@gmail.com>
 <36E45DD6-E2BD-4801-BAAE-4355C83D1AC3@newclarity.net>
 <ca1df8f5-18c9-f333-93c7-ba81d3ca3ea4@gmail.com>
 <538F5888-4B42-42AA-8312-872A836B0FB9@newclarity.net>
 <d65d4373-cce6-9d63-dc7f-c873c9846a74@gmail.com>
To: Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Auto-capture multi-line closures and
 shortfunctions take 2
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

> On Mar 25, 2021, at 1:57 PM, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On 25/03/2021 17:14, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>> Are you proposing auto-capture but one that is note able to change =
the variable's value in the outer scope?
>=20
>=20
> I'm not proposing that, Nuno is. That's what this RFC proposes.

Your earlier comment confused me. I thought you were describing a =
genuine concern when you mentioned by-value =E2=80=94 so I assumed the =
RFC had asked for by-ref even though I did not think it had.=20

But instead you were being disingenuous by not answering a legitimate =
question and instead implying that those who support the RFC lack reason =
and that they should just accept the status quo (copied below for =
reference):

> On Mar 25, 2021, at 12:50 PM, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> On 25/03/2021 15:02, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>> Can you please clarify why "function(...) use(...) {...}" can't be =
their solution when someone needs by-reference capture?
> For the same reason - or lack of reason - why it can't be the solution =
when they need by-value capture. In other words, whatever reason people =
have for wanting this RFC.

Instead, why not simply state your position against the RFC =
transparently =E2=80=94 as you eventually did in another reply =E2=80=94 =
and leave it at that?  Then the deciders can go off and make their =
decisions on the RFC as they will.


-Mike=