Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:125899
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2024 12:54:49 +0100
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu?= <drealecs@gmail.com>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, php internals
 <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Support Closures in constant expressions
In-Reply-To: <CAAwdEzBV1G=xVxHqyu5QSt_G+Fx+Pf_g-zGasLzJfFKkGpM=EA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <15da4c13445d7e9c9d768c60c19768d4@bastelstu.be>
 <3b458165-406c-4b70-97bc-6e98d6c44c72@app.fastmail.com>
 <6f39dce9e6b0579baa51bc84cb8140b9@bastelstu.be>
 <CAAwdEzBV1G=xVxHqyu5QSt_G+Fx+Pf_g-zGasLzJfFKkGpM=EA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c3e3bd9a5114308cb80cf8c1ece6cfb4@bastelstu.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi

Am 2024-10-30 09:31, schrieb Alexandru Pătrănescu:
> So, why not allow capturing, since anyway the only place to capture are
> constants and static variables?

Static variables already support arbitrary expressions since 
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/arbitrary_static_variable_initializers. The RFC 
initially mentioned static variables as a place where only const-expr 
would be accepted, but I removed that once I remembered about that other 
RFC.

> And this way we could have short closures with auto-capture.
> If there are some technical reasons for not doing that, can we have 
> written
> in the RFC?

As stated in the RFC: This constraint is consistent with not supporting 
variables in constant expressions. Capturing a variable is effectively 
the same as reading a variable. It makes no sense to support one, but 
not the other.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus