Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:53193 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 82144 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2011 05:25:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Jun 2011 05:25:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=confik@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=confik@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: confik@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.170 mail-yx0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.213.170] ([209.85.213.170:38763] helo=mail-yx0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A7/A5-50253-DC70FED4 for ; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 01:25:33 -0400 Received: by yxk8 with SMTP id 8so67253yxk.29 for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 22:25:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2+3/VLvt/hf+sN16a0SLb832uM3sBPHvDKlM09jyqH4=; b=ZNYt5vUq9gsAXthETe3EcX+dEREGUlgOgbw42e3eb+72SEat0yHHPUOM+j+uvJ97Am hKJY18S/9RCtlAUtKn63Sknd9V7fcm32xVP9tjve5k+3BHIaFTZR7kFF4/Pr9q0J/5Av Z/a1Kb0i1Oe7ju5stL1N6ayoHKLVu7pi1f9dQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Dv0pT3cdfejXcBlZWBtrOwSSGrGPbDj+hqJ9u3P55Irlcdj4cTa72ONkkOaOvl4Sfc 2lAsQrOgXi/qQJyk6ysT2molBzKQWgezY6qehr4RxGuFguPmN0hrOy94nFL5auwGEPu8 XZt1hDmz8aFTSp8bIlzw36DQcNIfqnEtI2PwQ= Received: by 10.90.248.6 with SMTP id v6mr206224agh.143.1307510731146; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 22:25:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.65.1 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 22:25:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2BC077D2-6BAC-48AD-8CD4-AC60ABA3B61E@bitextender.com> References: <4DED3D5B.6030307@oracle.com> <4DEE782E.1020605@sugarcrm.com> <7104F8AD-489E-4824-97AA-D9831FAB77AA@bitextender.com> <4DEE8ABB.8040503@sugarcrm.com> <7E4C6CB6-ED93-4BFC-87B8-94FDEF243896@bitextender.com> <17.29.50253.ACD8EED4@pb1.pair.com> <41.0E.50253.11B9EED4@pb1.pair.com> <2BC077D2-6BAC-48AD-8CD4-AC60ABA3B61E@bitextender.com> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:25:10 +0500 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?RGF2aWQgWsO8bGtl?= Cc: dukeofgaming , "Matthew Weier O'Phinney" , internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Callable type From: confik@gmail.com (Alexey Shein) 2011/6/8 David Z=C3=BClke : > On 08.06.2011, at 00:38, dukeofgaming wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney < >> weierophinney@php.net> wrote: >> >>> On 2011-06-07, dukeofgaming wrote: >>> >>>> +1 for "callable", it is really more consistent. >>> >>> I was actually agreeing With David and Stas that "callback" was more >>> consistent, and casting my vote for that. >> >> Oh. But then, shouldn't is_callable be deprecated =C2=A0for a more consi= stently >> named is_callback? > > No, because is_callable() also performs visibility checks. > > Which of course begs the question... should the type hint do the same? > > David > > +1 to "callback" (and have mercy on docs/translation people, it's too much work to search/replace for such a minor difference :)) And yes, two similar terms (callback/callable) will make situation worse. Plus to Johanness question: will it add runtime performance overhead on code like this: function(callback $callback =3D 'non_existent_function') {} --=20 Regards, Shein Alexey