Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128070
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Single-Expression Functions
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:37:30 +0300
Message-ID: <D2FB3113-407C-44CF-8906-4536AF9000D5@gmail.com>
References: <3cbe99a8-3415-45d3-aaf5-b5f921aab5e5@bastelstu.be>
Cc: internals PHP <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <3cbe99a8-3415-45d3-aaf5-b5f921aab5e5@bastelstu.be>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
From: xepozzd@gmail.com (Dmitry Derepko)


> I'd like to note that the start of the vote was very surprising to me. As y=
ou acknowledged yourself, my email regarding open questions and issues with t=
he RFC has been left unanswered for more the a month and then you started vo=
ting 15 minutes after your response and making relevant changes to the RFC. T=
his short of a time did not allow me (or other readers) to carefully conside=
r the latest changes, which is the point of the discussion period.

You=E2=80=99re right. I thought to shut down the RFC after absence of intere=
st in the RFC, but Larry=E2=80=99s message reminded me that I should push it=
 further to try to fit in the release cycle, which ends soon.=20

> In fact the
>=20
>    $a =3D function() =3D> 123;
>=20
> example that I mentioned in my email and that your response said wouldn't b=
e allowed as part of the RFC still is in the existing proof-of-concept imple=
mentation.
>=20
> The RFC text itself also doesn't clearly specify what changes are proposed=
 and instead just uses some handwavy language "This RFC introduces a shortha=
nd syntax for functions that consist of a single return statement".
>=20
> In other words: It's not clear to me what changes to the language would ha=
ppen, were this RFC accepted, since the RFC doesn't clearly specify it.

In the purpose I=E2=80=99ve mentioned the function types that are going to b=
e changed in the RFC. I=E2=80=99m sorry if I made in unclear. Help me to imp=
rove it.=20


> The implementation is not the source of truth (and contradicts your respon=
se anways), unless explicitly specified in the RFC together with a clearly s=
pecified revision.

As I understand the RFC process, the implementation means nothing unless the=
 RFC accepted.=20
So please, use the RFC document to understand the intent and discussions to f=
ind already answered questions.=20

Anyway, I=E2=80=99m open for the news ideas, improvements and questions. Hop=
e it will help you to change the opinion.=20=