Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120550
Return-Path: <php-lists@koalephant.com>
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 18718 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2023 05:59:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5)
  by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 2023 05:59:48 -0000
Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33DF3180089
	for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu,  8 Jun 2023 22:59:47 -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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_NONE,
	SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.2
X-Spam-ASN: AS17378 206.123.64.0/18
X-Spam-Virus: No
X-Envelope-From: <php-lists@koalephant.com>
Received: from mail1.25mail.st (mail1.25mail.st [206.123.115.54])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS
	for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu,  8 Jun 2023 22:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [49.48.217.70])
	by mail1.25mail.st (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61AA260412;
	Fri,  9 Jun 2023 05:59:41 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.600.7\))
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuTTuk8rQhdAFqkUDmyP95F0dSYmZMUyD0NY4Ae+CPL0PA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 12:59:27 +0700
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <A787502A-3C90-4A10-85C3-C699C143CBE1@koalephant.com>
References: <CA+kxMuTTuk8rQhdAFqkUDmyP95F0dSYmZMUyD0NY4Ae+CPL0PA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.600.7)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC [Discussion]: Closure self-reference
From: php-lists@koalephant.com (Stephen Reay)



> On 4 Jun 2023, at 02:11, Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> wrote:
>=20
> Hi internals,
>=20
> I'm now opening the discussion for the Closure self-reference RFC:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closure_self_reference
>=20
> This was previously discussed as a draft here:
> https://externals.io/message/112216#112216
>=20
> Thank-you to KapitanOczywisty for the implementation.
>=20
> cheers
> Dan
> Ack
>=20
> --=20
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
>=20

Hi Dan,

I quite like this idea, but, to (ab)use the analogy, the syntax bike =
shed definitely needs a few more sample tins.

The various syntax choices that introduce a new variable all seem like =
they can easily lead to developer confusion about where each of the two =
variables are actually defined and what is valid.. I can see plenty of =
=E2=80=9C$closure =3D fn() as $closure =3D> =E2=80=A6.;` just because =
people are unsure.


Is there a syntax issue with e.g. `fn::self` / `function::self` for =
this? I realise this is mostly just a variation on `Closure::current()` =
but it =E2=80=9Cfeels=E2=80=9D a bit more natural, and has the added =
benefit that it *could* be extended to return a closure of **any** =
function, including regular named methods/functions etc in a later RFC, =
if there=E2=80=99s demand for it.



Cheers

Stephen=20=