Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115204 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 85931 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2021 08:17:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 2021 08:17:14 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66AB41804B0 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:37:11 -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=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, 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-lj1-f173.google.com (mail-lj1-f173.google.com [209.85.208.173]) (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 ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f173.google.com with SMTP id p24so14779409ljj.1 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:37:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qDd6dhXcmJz0mWDIrYGMpZUQ8B3NA23LoT+1PwIBEQ4=; b=cmXWO3MYEeyLR/EWb4cbTRsBmdNSlYWLu2Etb/fuSkDXP+GmzU1B9gdxbFYmFedsSk MJEKWzzKHxI+wYQXIotKvvEvAnYiBspymY6G61FqbrGlgGZyrgEme+222Y1sjxy9hjE6 vtyHSAZAmUxgHnov0iA/GTsmmuYfVdvBsvFjrHxDugvr6f466DOAabhwFXwaoACFuI+Z DFd2FNaBulXwoxX/+qObQZ9CidoOU1GLoY4bC/EgXMScu6dOt0Z6Lco6APeggku2vSrG loKuwykjJUPPQiPPcwYOiwlOZnpBCnnjmFWXIb80gov50LTO+TTaCzmCft0jsrdgLuFj ZwDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=qDd6dhXcmJz0mWDIrYGMpZUQ8B3NA23LoT+1PwIBEQ4=; b=Y5IEY8kZzeDQlNHq6/MtM8VC5FjSlmplUw4mYPShHCbutJevYFfH/NK0Pz9zlM7V6I TgiI2MD3nR5cnHNtMtMq0F8s542uTG1vTKsLI1u4ixRsaxnzSf99TTd6lrCQiT2Xga6f VTaDhST4bfmtQCKhNYIYawBLWy2y2ElrsOq8Uw4VVryyYjnlXZXPMYgW6gdk7EY5qBW2 ZrFtdPYqougGxv5pgvTKnOATXfOKec03C2rcKVlIldeyGPgWnLv/bEKzDxs29GK/0Hsz NVok7gnMqhp4H2MxDtY5HjrR5JZYdnGawZd08h7uZo3JZdodbH56fyFqOg9CqQOvDcFY QK1g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530GDKFxRbL2LZbwPxj/0zXj2mdQF7hrq+jn9juDSC2lUE1yXWfZ bv26W7V/TpyjyWn1TCi+2tfjT/Ynze5K1436UvYMOuLhyxw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz6O7Cb4Kh+Wsn5fAYwFHwQzWElsPRNj2qlUu1v6iM6dWrMJwkHvEFRdQdXaAxEU3zEbBRwQIoG+M46QE5eIM8= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a54d:: with SMTP id e13mr3164502ljn.272.1624955825915; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:37:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 10:36:50 +0200 Message-ID: To: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c789cb05c5e382a1" Subject: Re: [RFC] First-class callable syntax From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --000000000000c789cb05c5e382a1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 2:48 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > Hi internals, > > I'd like to present an RFC for a first-class callable syntax, which is > intended as a simpler alternative to the partial function application (PFA) > proposal: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/first_class_callable_syntax > > See the Rationale section for details on how this relates to PFA. Over the > past week, we've had a lot of discussions on how exactly PFA is supposed to > work (most of them OTR), and while we seem to have a tentative consensus on > the correct model to use (which does not match the current RFC), it's clear > that this feature has turned out more complicated than originally > anticipated. Joe (who provided the implementation for the PFA RFC) is also > concerned about the implementation complexity that the final model would > require. > > At least I personally was mainly interested in PFA because it provides a > first-class callable syntax as a side-effect. This RFC goes back to > providing *just* that. The syntax is forward-compatible with a future PFA > proposal though. > > Regards, > Nikita > I've updated the RFC to forbid combination with the nullsafe operator, as well as explicitly mention strict types behavior, as these came up in the PFA discussion. I plan to put up this RFC for voting in the event that the PFA proposal does not get accepted. Regards, Nikita --000000000000c789cb05c5e382a1--