Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128068
Message-ID: <3cbe99a8-3415-45d3-aaf5-b5f921aab5e5@bastelstu.be>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:23:06 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Single-Expression Functions
To: Dmitry Derepko <xepozzd@gmail.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CANTuiHuiaRqXQZBn+_cS2SV3P8CJvRgxXWToeQK5sfA+=jXihA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <CANTuiHuiaRqXQZBn+_cS2SV3P8CJvRgxXWToeQK5sfA+=jXihA@mail.gmail.com>
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

On 7/15/25 19:56, Dmitry Derepko wrote:
> RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/single-expression-functions
> Discussion: https://externals.io/message/127423
> PR: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/17677

Thank you for the RFC. It probably does not come entirely unexpected 
that I voted against, given the feedback I provided during the 
discussion in:

https://externals.io/message/127423#127577

I'd like to note that the start of the vote was very surprising to me. 
As you acknowledged yourself, my email regarding open questions and 
issues with the RFC has been left unanswered for more the a month and 
then you started voting 15 minutes after your response and making 
relevant changes to the RFC. This short of a time did not allow me (or 
other readers) to carefully consider the latest changes, which is the 
point of the discussion period.

In fact the

     $a = function() => 123;

example that I mentioned in my email and that your response said 
wouldn't be allowed as part of the RFC still is in the existing 
proof-of-concept implementation.

The RFC text itself also doesn't clearly specify what changes are 
proposed and instead just uses some handwavy language "This RFC 
introduces a shorthand syntax for functions that consist of a single 
return statement".

In other words: It's not clear to me what changes to the language would 
happen, were this RFC accepted, since the RFC doesn't clearly specify 
it. The implementation is not the source of truth (and contradicts your 
response anways), unless explicitly specified in the RFC together with a 
clearly specified revision.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus