Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120091
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6b5de716-d769-4f0b-b3e6-5a5a211f035a@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6b5de716-d769-4f0b-b3e6-5a5a211f035a@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 22:47:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+p1Faat2-Ze7HzLJaeKtmQ1kRqdDUqTzVoA2KHLPuh0_Yz=0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000089b17d05f9cb7eaa"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [Discussion] Callable types via Interfaces
From: davidgebler@gmail.com (David Gebler)

--00000000000089b17d05f9cb7eaa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 6:25=E2=80=AFPM Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.=
com>
wrote:

> ## The options
>
> There's three ways we've come up with that this design could be
> implemented.  In concept they're not mutually exclusive, so we could do
> one, two, or three of these.  Figuring out which approach would get the
> most support is the purpose of this thread.
>

My initial feelings based on the options laid out is that anything which
can't support FCCs in the manner of strlen(...) is probably a non-starter
in terms of language design. Changes like this are fundamentally about
making things simpler, more concise and more convenient for users, not
drip-feeding a stream of "and here's yet another way of working with..."
features across releases.

Structural typing option seems like the easiest to implement in the engine
(correct me if I'm wrong?) and probably the best syntax for the user within
the interface approach. But then do we really want to introduce new runtime
checks and complexity when the general trend of the language has been in
the opposite direction? I imagine probably not.

So out of the three, I lean towards adding castTo() to Closure and it maybe
raises a to-be-determined Throwable if the closure is already bound? It's
not as friendly for the user as the other options but it seems like the
most workable, it delivers value and it most closely fits within the
existing way of working with all types of closure today.

-Dave

--00000000000089b17d05f9cb7eaa--