Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39726
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.163 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <489AA09C.9090901@zend.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:13:32 +0400
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
CC: Moriyoshi Koizumi <moriyoshi@at.wakwak.com>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <909776579.20080803142659@marcus-boerger.de> <4896A7C4.8090503@zend.com> <4110083360.20080804104233@marcus-boerger.de> <4896EA3C.6010203@zend.com> <4897E9B5.9020006@at.wakwak.com> <4897F54F.7080909@zend.com> <96829337.20080805132125@marcus-boerger.de> <48983960.3020003@zend.com> <1665638762.20080805213257@marcus-boerger.de>
In-Reply-To: <1665638762.20080805213257@marcus-boerger.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Inconsistencies in 5.3
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)

Hi Marcus,

In case you really like this syntax, you can try to implement patch and 
propose it to @internals.

I don't like it just because it seems wrong for me, so personally I'll 
object your patch.

Thanks. Dmitry.

Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Dmitry,
> 
> Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 1:28:32 PM, you wrote:
> 
>> Of course not, but it will be very hard to understand difference and 
>> fix parser conflicts.
> 
> How is that hard? we have top_statement and inner_statement in our
> parser...problem solved.
> 
> Ha, i actually just learned this way that we support inner functions, tsk.
> 
> marcus
> 
>> Thanks. Dmitry.
> 
>> Marcus Boerger wrote:
>>> Hello Dmitry,
>>>
>>> Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 8:38:07 AM, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> Allowing "use" inside function body assuming allowing it everywhere.
>>>> $x = function($arg) {
>>>>                 if ($arg) {
>>>>                         use $a;
>>>>                 } else {
>>>>                         use $b;
>>>>                 }
>>>>         };
>>>> I don't like such ability and of course we won't be able to use "use" 
>>>> keyword as it will conflict with import statement.
>>> So the import statement use can be placed inside the body of a function as
>>> an expression?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
>>>>> Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>>>>>> Marcus Boerger wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello Dmitry,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Monday, August 4, 2008, 8:55:00 AM, you wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Marcus,
>>>>>>>> see below
>>>>>>>> Marcus Boerger wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello Internals,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   please let's not introduce new inconsistencies. Rather lets make new
>>>>>>>>> stuff consistent with old stuff during the alpha phase of 5.3.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) new keyword 'use'. Semantically it is the same as 'static' or 
>>>>>>>>> 'global'
>>>>>>>>> so it should be used in the same location.
>>>>>>>> For me 'use' is the best keyword as it says that closure uses 
>>>>>>>> variables from current content. (the same keyword is used for import 
>>>>>>>> from namespaces)
>>>>>>> To be clear, I wasn't complaining about the keyword per se. I just 
>>>>>>> prefer
>>>>>>> it to be inside the curly braces of a closure next to global rather 
>>>>>>> than in
>>>>>>> front of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. The list of lexical variables is a part of the closure definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The earlier implementation had "lexical" keyword which worked as you 
>>>>>> are suggesting, but it was much unclear.
>>>>> I don't think there are many differences in ambiguity between
>>>>>
>>>>> $closure = function ($arg) { use $a;
>>>>>   ...
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> $closure = function ($arg) use ($a) {
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> Moriyoshi
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>  Marcus
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
>  Marcus
>