Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:125947
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:32:26 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <e1ec131c-7cd6-4a61-8458-574593dfd42c@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <461FD462-72A8-42D4-B6A2-CA10AC5CA395@gmail.com>
References: 
 <eA2u_Q4Tx5JeWD3_afszKmrPzzJq19VZ9tNjUktkftqvm6MtNpYOjmoRx4UfEqge4hfqmPn3CepKezqEPpdRBi8xhFWucCNjl6ffqgGPtbc=@gpb.moe>
 <461FD462-72A8-42D4-B6A2-CA10AC5CA395@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Make Closure covariant to callable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024, at 10:43 AM, Claude Pache wrote:
>> Le 12 nov. 2024 =C3=A0 14:53, Gina P. Banyard <internals@gpb.moe> a =C3=
=A9crit :
>>=20
>> Hello internals,
>>=20
>> Ond=C5=99ej Mirtes (author of PHPStan) remarked to me in August that =
Closure is not a subtype of callable.
>> The implementation of this is quite straight forward and can be seen =
on GitHub. [1]
>> The question is if there are any concern or not and if this requires =
an RFC or can just be merged as is.
>>=20
>> Best regards,
>>=20
>> Gina P. Banyard
>>=20
>> [1] https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/15492
>
>
> Hi Gina,
>
> That seems reasonable.
>
> But personally, I would be more interested in having a type equivalent=20
> to `callable&object`, that is all objects that implement the=20
> `__invoke()` magic method (this is a strict super-type of \Closure).
>
> =E2=80=94Claude

I am in favor of Closure being covarant to callable, and to a new pseudo=
-type for Closure|Object-with-__invoke.  (Maybe Invokable?)  I do think =
they'd require brief RFCs, but both would have my support.

--Larry Garfield