Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:46797
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.226 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=DAvy4XdmITyqXEiYxIvoyRJDXi1cAuuxzeduV6tfOcEjh4tHzo0dbH/Y4PqEP4WjkT
         WoQ71nyyC3sLoaTezur1iqBedRVclAYCll7uxROC6Vac+BZC28RGiQnYQ8C/argUyddC
         BKO+AYqN2tMy0aBR/9k0knzBFRxChU4jlKxmE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4B54FC87.8070106@zend.com>
References: <4B54FC87.8070106@zend.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:53:52 +0100
Message-ID: <fe05d1541001190253u49633f32y649aafc5f0a8ea05@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] function call chaining
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

hi Stan,

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I wrote a small patch that enables this kind of syntax in PHP:
>
> foo()();
>
> What it means is that if foo() returns callable value (which probably should
> be function name or closure) then it would be called. Parameters and more
> than two sets of () work too.
> Of course, this is mostly useful for doing closures, and that was primary
> drive for implementing it - to make working with closures and especially
> function returning closures easier.
> What does not work currently is $foo->bar()() - since it is surprisingly
> hard to tell parser it's not {$foo->bar}()() - which of course is not what I
> want to do.
>
> The patch is here: http://random-bits-of.info/funcfunc.diff
>
> What do you think? If somebody has better idea btw - maybe make something
> like {foo()}() - and make that work for any expression inside {} - that
> might work too. So, what do you think?

I'm not a fan of this kind of syntaxic sugars, especially for
procedural implementation only. What are the benefits?

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org