Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130063
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2026 14:01:16 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <4de375b9-e3b6-4432-b466-5186d9002d04@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <AM8P250MB01707953A7DC2D97C1ADECC7E266A@AM8P250MB0170.EURP250.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <64953ec741a4c6609519e1878ad37b54@bastelstu.be>
 <253ee811-0c1d-7eab-4c36-38607401aaf6@php.net>
 <28461544eb11b41dce7c7563ad879e63@bastelstu.be>
 <d7dcd6d2-979b-4eee-9659-9a7b40a74030@rwec.co.uk>
 <62a90f31-697b-4607-a1ba-67956f5adfac@app.fastmail.com>
 <5c6ff4c3-8a1b-4b4a-8c1a-0acbb7b1cae2@bastelstu.be>
 <acae4e07-8e3a-4a26-a34c-a115e88291d7@app.fastmail.com>
 <AM8P250MB01707953A7DC2D97C1ADECC7E266A@AM8P250MB0170.EURP250.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Partial Function Application for instance of non-static
 methods ("$this")
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Fri, Feb 6, 2026, at 4:05 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
> I'd like to search for appropriate words...

You were apparently unsuccessful.

> On 6.2.2026 21:30:11, Larry Garfield wrote: 
>> Sure, but we can fiddle with the details to find something that works.  I also suggested something like these to Arnaud off-list:
>> 
>> (?: Test)->stuff(?);
>> (Test ?)->stuff(?);
>> ((Test)?)->stuff(?);
>> 
>> --Larry Garfield 
>
>
> Could you please not push this garbage.

As stated repeatedly, this is just idiating on possible syntaxes that allow for an abbreviated form when the object is the only thing being partialed.  If you don't like the ideas thrown out so far, please share your own rather than getting insulting.

My original plan was to use `$$->foo(3, 4)`, which would always produce a single-parameter closure that would invoke `foo(3, 4)` on whatever object was passed to it.  I was not involved in this RFC from Arnaud and Tim, but I'm trying to look for ways to improve it so that it can cover the most common use case better.

I very much support the idea, but I don't think I would vote Yes on the current syntax.  It's far too cumbersome for the most common case.

Assistance finding a syntax that would satisfy all presented situations would be more welcome than calling brainstorming "garbage."

--Larry Garfield