Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114542
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAC5V6ghco1H4jT2Y_ug3LTWfyAz_5f6iCObGrdDfXn2PeuXgLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 18:46:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuSLNBnJMSmNUkMV6Np4SZH8ctW+Dc3cpCnGArW=ozbMAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Guilliam Xavier <guilliam.xavier@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] First-class callable syntax
From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)

Ond=C5=99ej Mirtes wrote:
> Hi, I=E2=80=99m confused by the syntax, when I read it,...

That is true of almost any new syntax. Some of us are still getting
used to seeing \ in front of function calls. It doesn't mean that the
syntax choice is a bad one, just that it's something new.

For me, the main questions I ask myself is:

* could I explain what the syntax means to a junior developer?
* would the junior developer be able to remember it?

For both of those questions, the suggested syntax seems fine.

Guilliam Xavier wrote:
> I wouldn't want to start new bikeshedding here; is there a
> place that would be more appropriate to gather the possibilities

Unfortunately I don't think we do have a better place. Being able to
fork conversations so that "not completely off-topic, but not really
that productive and getting in the way of the main discussion stuff",
can be out of the way, but findable, is a feature that would be really
useful for discussions.

Nikita Popov wrote:
> I am generally open to using a different syntax,

Well, you might regret saying that. It might not be appropriate*, but
having $() as marking a closure/callable seems 'clean' to me. Though
obviously novel and likely to cause gut reactions:

$(strlen);
$($foo, bar);
$(Foo, quux);
$($foo->fn);
$($foo);
$($fn);

Each would be equivalent to:

Closure::fromCallable('strlen');
Closure::fromCallable([$foo, 'bar']);
Closure::fromCallable([Foo::class, 'quux']); // aka
Closure::fromCallable('Foo::quux');
Closure::fromCallable($foo->fn);
Closure::fromCallable($foo);
Closure::fromCallable($fn);

For the code:

class Foo {
    public $fn;
    public function __construct($fn) {
        $this->fn =3D $fn;
    }
    public function bar() {
    }
    public static function quux() {
    }
    public function __invoke() {
    }
}

$fn =3D function() {
    echo "I am function\n";
};

$foo =3D new Foo($fn);

cheers
Dan
Ack

* at least in the sense that it's a big syntax change, for a
relatively small feature.