Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117931
To: internals@lists.php.net
Cc: Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 14:57:21 +0200
Message-ID: <2347345.PIDvDuAF1L@arnaud-t490>
In-Reply-To: <8310f3fd-0011-970e-5379-b2b6e03942b2@gmail.com>
References: <2b35605f-8da8-46b1-aec3-00bd1bfe47fd@www.fastmail.com> <8310f3fd-0011-970e-5379-b2b6e03942b2@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Short Closures 2, aka auto-capture take 3
From: arnaud.lb@gmail.com (Arnaud Le Blanc)

On samedi 11 juin 2022 23:14:28 CEST Rowan Tommins wrote:
> My main concern is summed up accidentally by your choice of subject line
> for this thread: is the proposal to add *short closure syntax* or is it
> to add *auto-capturing closures*?

The proposal is to extend the Arrow Functions syntax so that it allows 
multiple statements. I wanted to give a name to the RFC, so that we could 
refer to the feature by that name instead of the longer "auto-capture multi-
statement closures". But the auto-capture behavior is an important aspect we 
want to inherit from Arrow Functions.

> As such, I think we need additional features to opt
> back out of capturing, and explicitly mark function- or block-scoped
> variables.

Currently the `use()` syntax co-exists with auto-capture, but we could change 
it so that an explicit `use()` list disables auto-capture instead:

```php
fn () use ($a) { } // Would capture $a and disable auto-capture
fn () use () { }   // Would capture nothing and disable auto-capture
```

> On the other hand, "auto-capturing" could be seen as a feature in its
> own right; something that users will opt into when it makes sense, while
> continuing to use explicit capture in others. If that is the aim, the
> proposed syntax is decidedly sub-optimal: to a new user, there is no
> obvious reason why "fn" and "function" should imply different semantics,
> or which one is which. A dedicated syntax such as use(*) or use(...)
> would be much clearer. We could even separately propose that "fn" and
> "function" be interchangeable everywhere, allowing combinations such as
> "fn() use(...) { return $x; }" and "function() => $x;"

Unfortunately, Arrow Functions already auto-capture today, so requiring a 
`use(*)` to enable auto-capture would be a breaking change.

> I don't find the comparison to a foreach loop very convincing. Loops are
> still only accessing variables while the function is running, not saving
> them to be used at some indeterminate later time.

Do you have an example where this would be a problem?

> This is also where comparison to other languages falls down: most
> languages which capture implicitly for closures also merge scopes
> implicitly at other times - e.g. global variables in functions; instance
> properties in methods; or nested block scopes. Generally they also have
> a way to opt out of those, and mark a variable as local to a function or
> block; PHP does not, because it has always required an opt *in*.

These languages capture/inherit in a read-write fashion. Being able to scope a 
variable (opt out of capture) is absolutely necessary otherwise there is only 
one scope.

In these languages it is easy to accidentally override/bind a variable from 
the parent scope by forgetting a variable declaration. 

Auto-capture in PHP is by-value. This makes this impossible. It also makes 
explicit declarations non-necessary and much less useful.

> Which leads me back to my constructive suggestion: let's introduce a
> block scoping syntax (e.g. "let $foo;") as a useful feature in its own
> right, before we introduce short closures.

I like this, especially if it also allows to specify a type. However, I don't 
think it's needed before this RFC.

> As proposed, users will need to have some idea of what "live variable
> analysis" means, or add dummy assignments, if they want to be sure a
> variable is actually local. With a block scoping keyword, they can mark
> local variables explicitly, as they would in other languages.

Live-variable analysis is mentioned in as part of implementation details. It 
should not be necessary to understand these details to understand the behavior 
of auto-capture.

I've updated the "Auto-capture semantics" section of the RFC.

Regards,
--
Arnaud Le Blanc