Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:34130
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain bitxtender.com from 80.237.132.12 cause and error)
Cc: Alexey Zakhlestin <indeyets@gmail.com>,
 internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <3B55D45A-9FAD-4869-B8CA-E684CC46B752@bitxtender.com>
To: Antony Dovgal <tony@daylessday.org>
In-Reply-To: <476A33BD.1050508@daylessday.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:56:12 +0100
References: <98b8086f0712150818n40056cedyf0aae7a5a08a27b7@mail.gmail.com>	 <200712172130.08216.larry@garfieldtech.com>	 <4FADC266-873E-4FD2-BEC8-28EA9D833297@procata.com>	 <200712172341.54372.larry@garfieldtech.com>	 <98b8086f0712191345h7fe11a7kc5d34b0369754c8f@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>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PATCH: anonymous functions in PHP
From: dz@bitxtender.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?=)

Am 20.12.2007 um 10:19 schrieb Antony Dovgal:
> On 20.12.2007 11:18, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
>> On 12/20/07, Antony Dovgal <tony@daylessday.org> wrote:
>>> On 20.12.2007 09:57, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
>>>> being able to do the following (and not to worry about runtime
>>>> compilation) is a good reason on it's own:
>>>>
>>>> array_filter($my_data, function($test){ return 3 === ($test %  
>>>> 4) });
>>>
>>> Oh, my..
>>> This code clearly demonstrates why a syntax like this should not  
>>> be allowed. Ever.
>>
>> 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?
>
>> 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.

I think you're wrong. There are, especially recently, many examples of  
libraries, frameworks and products that require a very recent version  
of PHP. Not to mention "internal" projects, hosted services etc etc  
etc where supporting legacy versions does not matter.

array_map($array, function($item) { return $item['foo'] == 'bar'; });
etc would be a brilliant way of making code more maintainable and  
readable. most people don't create a special function for this, and  
also don't use create_function, but instead write difficult to  
understand loops or other constructs to process the data.

The point is that creating a function or method just for one array_map  
call indeed _does_ clutter the namespace with unnecessary stuff.  
Inline functions are elegant and make code more readable and  
maintanable, and that should be reason enough to have them.

Best regards,

David