Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:34122 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 99557 invoked by uid 1010); 20 Dec 2007 09:41:13 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 99532 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2007 09:41:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Dec 2007 09:41:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=indeyets@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=indeyets@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 64.233.184.227 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: indeyets@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.233.184.227 wr-out-0506.google.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from [64.233.184.227] ([64.233.184.227:39744] helo=wr-out-0506.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D8/EA-15872-4B83A674 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 04:41:09 -0500 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 55so2830473wri.2 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:41:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=qjLMv/01zlxx6d2LK1T9MHPvKx1TPhVtFJ7hemLqjpo=; b=jVv0HDVy279bBFbjbjj0t1WOTN3Y+w1DKga7uVsAc22mNasd6vcpv+hY2aK9ElnbDDYrG3zLHZtAOlaWozcCnmos10DuW8ZPndpGpyPx8ATeR48ZV97o/VtidGbraxOU24EpYWjgi3e569gz0dS+FBsWWUILCaC8swL7LwpI9/0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=M0BSjIGVHfw9XCtZKJb/2NKXcNNVbr4h2E0Bzqh08n1qJs6hR23V9M1bDmqHxHstWg8YKU2L5Atq43ixp5X/z4oHOUhWECaT85MmiZJQ2cTHdhpExfPvIvX7p1ql4kkqfQ4AYLy7T4nPS9aoQQW9OrXvi0IScRmasSabe+wD77Y= Received: by 10.150.149.19 with SMTP id w19mr4092310ybd.121.1198143666071; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:41:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.150.52.9 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:41:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:41:06 +0300 To: "Antony Dovgal" Cc: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <476A33BD.1050508@daylessday.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <98b8086f0712150818n40056cedyf0aae7a5a08a27b7@mail.gmail.com> <200712172341.54372.larry@garfieldtech.com> <98b8086f0712191345h7fe11a7kc5d34b0369754c8f@mail.gmail.com> <47699960.1090101@zend.com> <98b8086f0712191528n2fd348d0oe3da9eed20d87194@mail.gmail.com> <4769ACF5.7000701@zend.com> <476A208D.9020201@daylessday.org> <476A33BD.1050508@daylessday.org> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PATCH: anonymous functions in PHP From: indeyets@gmail.com ("Alexey Zakhlestin") On 12/20/07, Antony Dovgal wrote: > > you prefer cluttering namespace with a lot of oneliners? > > Oh, come on.. Since when do we call it "cluttering"? > Is there some kind of limit on number of functions in a namespace? > > Why limit yourself and "inline" the function instead of putting it > into a nice library of utility functions? it doesn't make sense to put some of these functions in libraries, because they are really once-used. another good reason is, that optimizer can safely inline this function by eliminating function call at all (using cycle as an internal representation, while letting keep short one in source) > > currently, people prefer to use explicit cycles instead of > > array_map/array_filter and that looks ugly (hides actual logic behind > > syntax), but at least it is not as slow as create_function. > > Whatever people currently use - it's their choice. > If you think that people would magically switch to the new syntax (if we decide to > add it after all) in a moment, I'm afraid I have to upset you - this will not happen > in the next 10 years because of many reasons, so people would still use the good > old syntax they're used to. > > So here is what we _actually_ get with this anonymous function syntax: > 1) Yet another way to make the code unreadable and overcomplicated. it is not unreadable. it is perfectly readable for people with modern-languages background (and I don't mean 1 or 2 languages, I mean majority) > 2) Yet another incompatible syntax you cannot use if you need to support older PHP versions > (and you can't check for it in runtime, since this is a compile time thingie). yes > 3) 10 people happy because they got a new toy. "thousands" is a closer number -- Alexey Zakhlestin http://blog.milkfarmsoft.com/