Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115206
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 11:04:07 +0200
To: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <20210629110407.7b390147@mcmic-probook.opensides.be>
In-Reply-To: <39d4b486-a373-4233-81f6-649567f93c57@www.fastmail.com>
References: <222b3921-3d9b-47f9-8d13-e6a123f36fad@www.fastmail.com>
	<20210617100152.166bfed6@mcmic-probook.opensides.be>
	<39d4b486-a373-4233-81f6-649567f93c57@www.fastmail.com>
Organization: FusionDirectory
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [Vote] Partial Function Application
From: come.chilliet@fusiondirectory.org (=?UTF-8?B?Q8O0bWU=?= Chilliet)

Le Thu, 17 Jun 2021 08:30:43 -0500,
"Larry Garfield" <larry@garfieldtech.com> a =C3=A9crit :
> > > The ? character was chosen for the placeholder largely because it was
> > > unambiguous and easy to implement. Prior, similar RFCs (such as the
> > > original Pipe Operator proposal from several years ago) used the $$
> > > (lovingly called T_BLING) sigil instead. So far no compelling argument
> > > has been provided for changing the character, so the RFC is sticking
> > > with ?.  =20
> >=20
> > The main argument for $$ is to be able to have partial methods with $$-=
>,
> > this should be stated in this paragraph. =20
>=20
> That's not something that was ever brought up in the discussion.

Finally found where I read that, it=E2=80=99s in an other RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/first_class_callable_syntax#partial_function_appli=
cation

C=C3=B4me