Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39197 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 11945 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2008 20:09:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Jul 2008 20:09:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=stas@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=stas@zend.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.163 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: stas@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.25.124.163 il-gw1.zend.com Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 Received: from [212.25.124.163] ([212.25.124.163:42430] helo=il-gw1.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CA/01-04511-E8E36884 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:09:50 -0400 Received: from us-ex1.zend.com ([192.168.16.5]) by il-gw1.zend.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:10:22 +0300 Received: from [192.168.16.110] ([192.168.16.110]) by us-ex1.zend.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:09:32 -0700 Message-ID: <48863E7C.8040900@zend.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:09:32 -0700 Organization: Zend Technologies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lars Strojny CC: Christian Seiler , Lukas Kahwe Smith , PHP Developers Mailing List , kalle@zesix.com References: <8A5D4032-1FC4-44BB-90F3-61B802F10159@pooteeweet.org> <6BD46F4A-2733-4160-9A3E-AD49F3002865@pooteeweet.org> <4885CF6B.5060600@gmx.net> <1216731965.16085.8.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1216731965.16085.8.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2008 20:09:32.0123 (UTC) FILETIME=[DAAD2AB0:01C8EC36] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] closures questions From: stas@zend.com (Stanislav Malyshev) Hi! > Hm, I'm not sure who expected it that way. At least Stas and myself > voted *for* allowing it. We need to discuss the semantics (the order how > methods are resolved, interceptors) but I had the feeling that most of > use really much liked that feature. I'm all for doing it, the problem is the syntax $foo->bar() is already used. But you can do $foo->bar->__invoke()! -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com