Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38490 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 16523 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2008 20:03:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Jun 2008 20:03:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=chris_se@gmx.net; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=chris_se@gmx.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.net designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: chris_se@gmx.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 213.165.64.20 mail.gmx.net Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from [213.165.64.20] ([213.165.64.20:55020] helo=mail.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B2/B4-12821-3FC0C584 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:03:01 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2008 20:02:57 -0000 Received: from p54A17093.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO chris-se.dyndns.org) [84.161.112.147] by mail.gmx.net (mp027) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2008 22:02:57 +0200 X-Authenticated: #186999 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19Ho59oREpHO2zwCXihgkSkV3ZXuIJdQgBP5KbbeX WRvZ8EVB6PuIqa Received: from [192.168.100.13] (cobalt.seiler.lan [192.168.100.13]) by chris-se.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EBBE106F0; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:49:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <485C0CBE.4030206@gmx.net> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:02:06 +0200 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Markus Fischer CC: php-dev List References: <4856A547.3080801@gmx.net> <485C06C8.7050203@fischer.name> In-Reply-To: <485C06C8.7050203@fischer.name> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] [RFC] Closures and lambda functions in PHP From: chris_se@gmx.net (Christian Seiler) Hi! > Since some raised issues with the word "lexical", what do people think > to just re-use the (afaik deprecated) "var" keyword, so we won't need a > new keyword in the chain. That would be quite confusing IMHO, since JavaScript uses 'var' for the exact opposite - to declare variables that are local and thus *not* taken from the parent scope. Regards, Christian