Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114539
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c_iYjsDWoqPaDtavVgj2WFdpiuBmGeQZFAqokVoVZTxoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALfTnfXDTvrtA9-hN+UH+qs3iS9q34jseunBD7YumGkonrSwXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c9DpTWzqu9S9=CkuaW=RnbneXUbRbqhuJDRBPwUz9RMsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAC5V6ghco1H4jT2Y_ug3LTWfyAz_5f6iCObGrdDfXn2PeuXgLg@mail.gmail.com> <8c37bfe0-bf64-43ad-e553-165a4cab63b3@softsatsistemas.com.br>
In-Reply-To: <8c37bfe0-bf64-43ad-e553-165a4cab63b3@softsatsistemas.com.br>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 19:05:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c98DDqRGomhQqEA_ZsicO0AH5DS7Dt60+AqeBhzgjYUhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luis Henrique <luis@softsatsistemas.com.br>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000587dfc05c2c5f341"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] First-class callable syntax
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--000000000000587dfc05c2c5f341
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:22 PM Luis Henrique <luis@softsatsistemas.com.br>
wrote:

> On 20/05/2021 12:55, Guilliam Xavier wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:16 PM Ond=C5=99ej Mirtes <ondrej@mirtes.cz> =
wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, I=E2=80=99m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to my=
self =E2=80=9CI
> know
> >>> this, this is just a method call=E2=80=A6 oh wait, it=E2=80=99s actua=
lly a callable=E2=80=9D.
> It
> >>> really makes my head hurt.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, I can see how that could be confusing. The current syntax is
> chosen to
> >> be a subset of the partial function application proposal. However, I
> would
> >> also be happy with some other syntax that makes it clearer that this i=
s
> >> acquiring a callable and not performing a call.
> >>
> >
> > Hi, several other syntaxes have been proposed to consideration in the P=
FA
> > thread, and I wouldn't want to start new bikeshedding here; is there a
> > place that would be more appropriate to gather the possibilities (like =
a
> > kind of updatable list)?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
>
> I am much more into advanced features of PFA, but is this case why not
> just use the & operator for "function reference" like C/C++? It is well
> known and solves the ambiguity with method/function call.
>
> $fn =3D &$this->myFunc;
>
> $fn =3D &myFunc;
>
> $fn =3D &Foo::myFunc;
>

Unfortunately, this syntax is trivially ambiguous. "$fn =3D &$this->myFunc"
is currently already interpreted as a reference assignment of the property
$this->myFunc.

I have updated
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/first_class_callable_syntax#syntax_choice to
discuss some of the obvious suggestions and why they don't work.

Regards,
Nikita

--000000000000587dfc05c2c5f341--