Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:34125
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 64.233.178.244 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
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=JyiDLweXmr4VILjuk0S2X/mmuTUHKhmBn3qhQKue/3RLjNEi3EB73wBhP7SfpWuXjmapnHJX+qRmK1f/QyWXGefrG4XQr+YOBYxU2ieXin3xqSU4hpEXxbI6FnD0S6+OfyXZrUNSlW2uqGl8VXEokPAyLFwZOGNkCcLeW3kTL2c=
Message-ID: <cd5680a20712200221g4c089486q5a93901f36056007@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:21:20 +0300
To: "Antony Dovgal" <tony@daylessday.org>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <476A3C72.6030908@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>
	 <47699960.1090101@zend.com>
	 <98b8086f0712191528n2fd348d0oe3da9eed20d87194@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4769ACF5.7000701@zend.com>
	 <cd5680a20712192257p1a10a488ub0dc61a512d3341f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <476A208D.9020201@daylessday.org>
	 <cd5680a20712200018x4bfe8fd7n20fbf2a4e820a61b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <476A33BD.1050508@daylessday.org>
	 <cd5680a20712200141o1fcd4734g18c8a4672de7781c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <476A3C72.6030908@daylessday.org>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PATCH: anonymous functions in PHP
From: indeyets@gmail.com ("Alexey Zakhlestin")

On 12/20/07, Antony Dovgal <tony@daylessday.org> wrote:
> On 20.12.2007 12:41, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
> > it doesn't make sense to put some of these functions in libraries,
> > because they are really once-used.
>
> It makes perfect sense to keep all your functions in one place instead of
> spreading them all over the code.
> And no, this kind of "optimization" doesn't make your code run any faster.

if this was a comment to inline-optimization I mentioned, then it
actually would make my code run faster (I use PHP for quite unusual
tasks)

> >> 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)
>
> A new syntax that conflicts with currently existing one (or looks very similar to)
> doesn't make code more readable, it adds more confusion instead.

should we change "function" word on "lambda" word there to make
confusion smaller?

> >> 3) 10 people happy because they got a new toy.
> > "thousands" is a closer number
>
> Does this mean you do admit that this is just a new toy? (pretty useless, but funny) =)

I admit, that I do programming, because it is fun
If it is not fun, I get bored and switch to other task

this functionality would make programming of some tasks more fun and,
as result, will lead to greater productivity

-- 
Alexey Zakhlestin
http://blog.milkfarmsoft.com/