Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117921
Message-ID: <25caf251-d9a4-ba57-9e23-7f0ccd914cf3@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2022 21:44:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <2b35605f-8da8-46b1-aec3-00bd1bfe47fd@www.fastmail.com>
 <2279cbd2-fcfe-460f-97f9-0029b7b043bb@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2279cbd2-fcfe-460f-97f9-0029b7b043bb@www.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Short Closures 2, aka auto-capture take 3
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

On 12/06/2022 18:21, Larry Garfield wrote:
> The primary target of this RFC is people writing 2-4 line closures that import 1-2 variables


The first half of that sentence I was expecting - although as I've 
already said, I think the chosen syntax suggests strongly that the RFC 
is really targeting *all* closures, not any subset of them.

The second half makes much less sense. If you are only importing 1 or 2 
variables, is writing their names really that big a burden?

Several of the conversations I've had on this in the past have been very 
explicitly about the burden of large numbers of captures; if that's 
really as rare as you suggest, it makes me wonder why we're even bothering.

Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]