Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128057
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.600.51.1.1\))
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Single-Expression functions
In-Reply-To: <68682212b6cc36ebd775e2504d941079@bastelstu.be>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:40:13 +0300
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <4BFE8460-591B-4AE1-81FC-9E04D69CA999@gmail.com>
References: <CANTuiHuOxuwB2oTvPNekdkUCJbxWHMMrXjzQfHo2Tsui6NyoXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <68682212b6cc36ebd775e2504d941079@bastelstu.be>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
From: xepozzd@gmail.com (Dmitry Derepko)

Hi Tim,=20

Great questions, I=E2=80=99ll try to answer them all.=20
Sorry for the late answer, looked like there are no interest in the RFC =
and I almost forgot about it.

> On Jun 4, 2025, at 12:23=E2=80=AFPM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus =
<tim@bastelstu.be> wrote:
>=20
> In the implementation I'm seeing that `$a =3D function() =3D> 123;` =
will also become legal (=E2=80=9Cshort closures with function instead of =
fn=E2=80=9D). This is not mentioned in the RFC text. It also raises the =
question how that variant will interact with variable capturing.

Nope. Anonymous functions won=E2=80=99t become available. Use arrow =
functions with auto-capturing instead.

RFC propose classic function and class methods become available be =
one-liners

> An AST printing test in the implementation would be useful to have. =
You can do that with `assert(false && new class { });` (using an =
anonymous class).

Sure, when RFC successfully pass Voting stage, alright?

> I believe the reasoning given is not a fair comparison. The RFC says =
that `getName() "Name"` would be the relevant information, which I can =
agree with. But this is not what the proposed syntax looks like. A fair =
comparison would be:
>=20
>    function getName() { return "Name"; }
>    function getName() =3D>       "Name";
>=20
> And when compared like this, it becomes clear that you are trading =
`{}` for `=3D>` and effectively only save the `return`, which to me =
provides little incremental value. Especially when comparing the =
signatures from the Calculator example:
>=20
>    public function multiply(int $a, int $b): int       =3D> $a * $b;
>    public function multiply(int $a, int $b): int { return $a * $b; }

Cool point. I=E2=80=99ve updated examples.

> I also don't like how the actual implementation is pushed to the right =
of the line. This makes it harder for me to scan for it. The linebreaks =
that the RFC states =E2=80=9Ccreate cognitive overhead=E2=80=9D guide =
the eye for me. So perhaps we should also compare:
>=20
>    public function multiply(int $a, int $b): int
>        =3D> $a * $b;
>    public function multiply(int $a, int $b): int {
>        return $a * $b;
>    }

I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s correct comparison. Why the linebreak =
should be there?
If it is set by an editor, it=E2=80=99s not programmer/language issue. =
Set your editor to:
- Single expression function becomes regular when the line is greater =
than 180 chars AND/OR Vice-versa
- Same above, but ignore instead of breaking the line
- Other

> So basically the only thing we gain is the removal of a keyword in =
some situations. When trying to extend the logic in a function to more =
than one expression (which is not unlikely for methods), I would be =
forced to make multiple =E2=80=9Cboilerplate=E2=80=9D changes instead of =
just adding my logic, effectively undoing any benefit the syntax =
might've provided.

Correct point, almost. Intellij IDEA provides quick action for Kotlin =
SEF=E2=80=99s, so you may turn SEF -> Regular and vice-versa calling =
CTRL+ENTER, Chose correct option, Enter.
Usually, we read code tens times often then write.=20


----------

Best regards,
Dmitrii Derepko.
@xepozz