Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115205
Return-Path: <olleharstedt@gmail.com>
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 88049 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2021 08:32:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5)
by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 2021 08:32:34 -0000
Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A651804D9
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:52:32 -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,
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: <olleharstedt@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lf1-f44.google.com (mail-lf1-f44.google.com [209.85.167.44])
(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 <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-f44.google.com with SMTP id bp27so13042017lfb.9
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc;
bh=6Q0BOrPKxw+d+Rkmk8GIl1lR8Fj4PDry/hB5ee8BxaY=;
b=WKQV1Wsae2nRQiGV716U0qmC/8pGSDXv0m020LevoX4kDBa8c/9woAg2dOrHY/h+pW
SiVWP1DxlsLyLywWk/EJ8Q0o31jFyXjzfthliD1XOfRBKU6Yt3pda9EcD9vGpV2qPuUW
erw5Z8K0VChTSzm9cZ40CpSWi5a8kQnkkU2QtFZgL0U4XQUoB1eYGMMvk1OeFlhhrgoL
V0IR/mImxCku+brwKfbj2pF0RT4m5QJQQra/O8bHpQ7L6csCojqoopeOiQvJ1uPVm0LA
Ui2gvffif9jSyKBNf74DPhNpeBawf/zo8lXyhGxZmQssSw+y6vRDoC8ZHAAqB+zwMwQk
hSAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=6Q0BOrPKxw+d+Rkmk8GIl1lR8Fj4PDry/hB5ee8BxaY=;
b=dXGUAnx3FyqcZUMofZ4BjAvBfKuE9FssV3ke7IFKrin/SUPGTFTVl9jqeduHabjOry
/PsdMGA4j0p6DI5e7qBdoeU087teXiUapoT4cRQrxNBjEYlGM7in5ABk24XhYzFSQdi+
/1MCezyhQt14854kq8DL1xEPQ3rZAqC6IpnBaWfdaKC1EhgK+xr1Q0LGXLxwhPd1Db60
Q38HLJDUQRJyQnQtCZOVCjgZC8kCkR3wX0yeDW9MosT0v8EUmFKQYN9E2XiSmuKpGU5Y
I7xoRUFSHTbGngHT0JmZuSnEIY6s0DhR6gt5DWDc3yvc2P1PK2hXFYNnA9PmJSD8Vpez
/1uw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ewmknGxIE914vMoi75uHqqKfFnReSgJFu9wxOkH7Vhn5ZQ22D
wDIWnwjQdAu1uT39IxuxrR28qocHr60aIwjRiSQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy8BpGLg5FfyMhMb6HjfyYwZAIYgXwfIqIm4tAaFUdFhZfkMvnuadCKY3+ai7HUtjS6KN1gZAk0boCjbuq9CSs=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:c195:: with SMTP id r143mr21963671lff.61.1624956746286;
Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:ab3:7506:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:52:25
-0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c_iYjsDWoqPaDtavVgj2WFdpiuBmGeQZFAqokVoVZTxoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c_iYjsDWoqPaDtavVgj2WFdpiuBmGeQZFAqokVoVZTxoA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 10:52:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJpLVh0v=rB6LqYrQCxCn0+fhnELAEKLb3dyREZV7FDUkwxtvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] First-class callable syntax
From: olleharstedt@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olle_H=C3=A4rstedt?=)
2021-05-20 14:48 GMT+02:00, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>:
> 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
More bikeshedding, sorry. Was a syntax using `fn` considered? Like
$fn = Closure::fromCallable('strlen');
$fn = fn strlen;
or
$fn = (fn) strlen;
Olle