Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117895 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98877 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2022 17:49:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 2022 17:49:36 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FDAC1804D4 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 12:35:55 -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,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-lf1-f43.google.com (mail-lf1-f43.google.com [209.85.167.43]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 12:35:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f43.google.com with SMTP id a29so11031372lfk.2 for ; Thu, 09 Jun 2022 12:35:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EiY0Mpw8z7emw2pvcA20ET/SUf4nVFrhrCxhQCnFnoU=; b=l86WH/O5eLaUFTvVUAJbqL3+dcElHrfWSzUsMuuBbg0siZl0+Czw5dEjSGy+ZD5kbH Yb4wneoh5NnGg2wKeNTmivf3bVUSpVV1KxBXUfoNh0HSuZGcs30q6oPzTdWDgNaNs2W/ +V/hawUoDR8aExnUoCwTe9H6dhdmsPF07qnqPW2/VAhQVl25gegJ3n05QKXWnP2qJ5KQ yikFGsV00UARJIPlp1NDJ691M07NiNXqIwXr9Dohz7ceihg5U61tcvmEhr+GqAI2GWbH aZWHAwhNUJX0dBfha7C4VmKmKRXoUhCeAyeH/Clr5I6BHmR2qKi8Q5g9jE7tduAD68So xK7w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EiY0Mpw8z7emw2pvcA20ET/SUf4nVFrhrCxhQCnFnoU=; b=czH4a8CalDf8kHw1YDUutwLszpqyAqX3/VQleP8i/fXB7voSgY8xW/U/arHIX457oG RB4ZdcDR0fhPGyzaDXM+bja27lOq3fbJ8+qu/fePiq+370c74RircWhnnBklxyf/BS21 puzlp1T45ynIRIe2+NuWgb3glZ8ONzIaAQPF9PGzJiJ54OuIOUpxScJRaWDg5rHnAtuC cx17Dm/PbdncuUwThDyVBPboSCiFeflyOle2/kppPf5FFOGtmIXq0/0wSuJGeZlD6V01 Zw2XKeV34V6SswHD+YtuoXyyNLh6mzNgPihcLT7lP3AlSrdGnffKM8/iy/K9eJl32WDg nA+g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531TpGZX9sCxdCqtiRK8JEIhoPKQunS+VDak7/TW0779Ts9uLCWQ eAJ3hWJLIvnfW5aS/9ZQZVpJIM0XJzXRM6svN14= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0H104gpvkOlf9BLadNonlcOD/e4i3D4mYOCG7ih9Q1AZNERu0Lp+1xYu4FwTeNJWgDFrP3VN6PaCnQcxwuhc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:33cf:b0:478:ff22:edef with SMTP id d15-20020a05651233cf00b00478ff22edefmr25898569lfg.430.1654803353092; Thu, 09 Jun 2022 12:35:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2b35605f-8da8-46b1-aec3-00bd1bfe47fd@www.fastmail.com> <21891029.EfDdHjke4D@arnaud-t490> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:35:37 +0200 Message-ID: To: Marco Pivetta Cc: Arnaud Le Blanc , Larry Garfield , PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000008c5b505e108eecd" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Short Closures 2, aka auto-capture take 3 From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --00000000000008c5b505e108eecd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:29 PM Marco Pivetta wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 at 21:27, Nikita Popov wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 8:15 PM Arnaud Le Blanc >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On jeudi 9 juin 2022 18:46:53 CEST Marco Pivetta wrote: >>> > ## nesting these functions within each other >>> > >>> > What happens when/if we nest these functions? Take this minimal >>> example: >>> > >>> > ```php >>> > $a = 'hello world'; >>> > >>> > (fn () { >>> > (fn () { >>> > echo $a; >>> > })(); >>> > })(); >>> > ``` >>> >>> Capture bubbles up. When an inner function uses a variable, the outer >>> function >>> in fact uses it too, so it's captured by both functions, by-value. >>> >>> This example prints "hello world": The inner function captures $a from >>> the >>> outer function, which captures $a from its declaring scope. >>> >>> This is equivalent to >>> >>> ```php >>> (function () use ($a) { >>> (function () use ($a) { >>> echo $a; >>> })(); >>> })(); >>> ``` >>> >>> > ## capturing `$this` >>> > >>> > In the past (also present), I had to type `static fn () => ...` or >>> `static >>> > function () { ...` all over the place, to avoid implicitly binding >>> `$this` >>> > to a closure, causing hidden memory leaks. >>> > >>> > Assuming following: >>> > >>> > * these new closures could capture `$this` automatically, once >>> detected >>> > * these new closures can optimize away unnecessary variables that >>> aren't >>> > captured >>> > >>> > Would that allow us to get rid of `static fn () {` declarations, when >>> > creating one of these closures in an instance method context? >>> >>> It would be great to get rid of this, but ideally this would apply to >>> Arrow >>> Functions and Anonymous Functions as well. This could be a separate RFC. >>> >> >> I've tried this in the past, and this is not possible due to implicit >> $this uses. See >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/arrow_functions_v2#this_binding_and_static_arrow_functions >> for a brief note on this. The tl;dr is that if your closure does "fn() => >> Foo::bar()" and Foo happens to be a parent of your current scope and bar() >> a non-static method, then this performs a scoped instance call that >> inherits $this. Not binding $this here would result in an Error exception, >> but the compiler doesn't have any way to know that $this needs to be bound. >> >> Regards, >> Nikita >> > > Hey Nikita, > > Do you have another example? Calling instance methods statically is... > well... deserving a hard crash :| > Maybe easier to understand if you replace Foo::bar() with parent::bar()? That's the most common spelling for this type of call. I agree that the syntax we use for this is unfortunate (because it is syntactically indistinguishable from a static method call, which it is *not*), but that's what we have right now, and we can hardly just stop supporting it. Regards, Nikita --00000000000008c5b505e108eecd--