Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114552 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 23491 invoked from network); 21 May 2021 07:58:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 21 May 2021 07:58:15 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03364180211 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 01:08:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wr1-f43.google.com (mail-wr1-f43.google.com [209.85.221.43]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 01:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-f43.google.com with SMTP id p7so16375903wru.10 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 01:08:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=Ecfk5wocV/xtOTZXkTmUfaR06yB2vd957EMNwMZYfKI=; b=VXZgkRt4eV4ANT0BAWCsAPB/zIz0008hcLHzVzZfYtKihf5ZcyxV1k+uQDTmGv9aRB nQyUNcJFQ4gW4lIRQaGd+QWRej94N3kkpJuzaIBCcHu7Kxyvvk3quK1VuxQiCfb5rmFd x7psXXeHTSOBavLAtLDdgAJLL0R70WIxZnzINwmuqYTZzE6DP/6R0Cyxmhxh0So1Qv21 uCB9r5TKMSs7JuQPn6AM7HvUoNreA1+wwXtrRH9gJYaahtWJ1Zz89/U0IMSOP7IduxcL ZJ18KFdIN+BkvAxkDm6JIfBKyjyiYFjZIQjdxsbfOR91wY16Joc3k31A7kkh4JNz239l q0MA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=Ecfk5wocV/xtOTZXkTmUfaR06yB2vd957EMNwMZYfKI=; b=R8bTwr8zaI5lPOXf5UuME8KEVs6KxaDkDTKBY/paBZZcEjC2te7i8LR6sQgTz+ytUJ wFSUwCXmWCdlFMlJs6KDPsczNCIj0EcUgeNM64XxdA8VPSqjDlyfxR95Jn8gTZe5jI/P k4odeyaJHlhYwCjjW+oj3DUQbo1kXBIUHi2WeJ7PU5wNVMjyto/HrAoPOvtWVUm0oOwf 8wkhoI7+EkYian/bE8fiXL0kcZzQmCe5ZJfxEQ0dsOwQjRmlj/wp/X+ck1oddRrn/38U H6O5j0KUWykluCIQ7h8OF0hNwTKebVVj+2CqyA0aNw53vO/wVBJDsZ09htPw2IVQmI8o oVUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531LtuUuHWVzq9wf1eTTTUNnweb+Ya9S10pz3pqan3FpTwebP1gS meC5qJsvcxQtGHSvntXVPeg4c7hh9L0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyhTJb1OI8O1Req4iFBmCCB2fLZQEN60eov8DSlJnZrmuRJaH0E1rwu/DQyHPbV7w/E2ZPLbg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:43:: with SMTP id k3mr8283043wrx.222.1621584504765; Fri, 21 May 2021 01:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (cpc104104-brig22-2-0-cust548.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [82.10.58.37]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id h14sm1460681wrq.45.2021.05.21.01.08.24 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 May 2021 01:08:24 -0700 (PDT) To: internals@lists.php.net References: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 09:08:23 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] First-class callable syntax From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) On 20/05/2021 23:58, David Gebler wrote: > I think this is very sensible, I can only really say I'd rather have > Nikita's proposal land in 8.1 and PFAs in 9.0 done right than have PFAs in > 8.1 but in a way which is confusing, ambiguous or problematic for users, or > not covering reasonable expected use cases. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I hope it doesn't take until 9.0, but if we get first-class callables in 8.1 and partial application in 8.2 those are BOTH huge new features. And if by some miracle we come up with the perfect version of PFA a week after this RFC passes, that's ALSO great. Everyone: please let's keep this thread for talking about first-class callables, and focus on the semantics not just the syntax - are there edge cases we need to consider, downsides to the proposed implementation, etc? Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]