Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:48181
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.216 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=U9Bzg34E1q8Q8H2PMuXdCKUssO282RpY7VpxmZZ6IPHdtTRA6OqnmHeWR8wOAhgUIM
         /45sN1ZuIsbm8aaWc7jDC/1qfQ3b9yrxr4+60Kiojj6av79sRvP8kbVc44fOVZ9RvQvu
         U+4n3pnepwq+H9pwmDbJQeBNoiLIDyelhtJC4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: ekneuss@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4BDEF1AF.70704@easyflirt.com>
References: <4BDEC91F.9080305@easyflirt.com> <4BDEEEDA.1050806@cschneid.com>
	 <4BDEF1AF.70704@easyflirt.com>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 18:03:31 +0200
Message-ID: <l2ie666c3891005030903u3bdd432cz3b9c29ec4c8fc998@mail.gmail.com>
To: "mathieu.suen" <mathieu.suen@easyflirt.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Closure local return
From: webmaster@colder.ch (Etienne Kneuss)

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:54 PM, mathieu.suen <mathieu.suen@easyflirt.com> w=
rote:
>
>> I think you actually misunderstand the difference in
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_%28computer_science%29#Differences_=
in_semantics
>>
>> The way I read if the difference is wether it returns from the closure
>> function or the surrounding function *calling* it. Not the *defining*
>> scope.
>>
>> And no, it doesn't make sense in the PHP context IMHO.
>>
>> - Chris
>>
>>
>
> "returns from the closure function"
> To go were?
>
> I had maintain a smalltalk compiler.
> I did not misunderstand the difference.
>
> The Common Lisp implementation is the more explicit one.
> For exemple:
>
> (defun eval-l1 (fct) (funcall fct))
> (defun bar (x) (eval-l1 #'(lambda () (return-from bar 45)))
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0x)
>
> (bar 23) -> 45
>
> When funcall is apply you do not return from eval-l1. You return from bar=
.
> Which is the defining scope of the lanbda.

So

<?php
$a =3D function() { return; }

$a();
echo "end";
?>

would it be an infinite loop? would it print end?

what about:

<?php
function foo($c) {
   bar($c);
   echo "f";
}

function bar($c) {
   $c();
   echo "b";
}
$c =3D function() { return; }

foo($c);

what would it print? "f"? "fb" ? nothing?

Please, if you want to propose design changes, make a decent proposal
first, add some examples, not simply "what if PHP did <vague>".

Best,

>
>
> -- Mathieu Suen
>
>
>



--=20
Etienne Kneuss
http://www.colder.ch