Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65954
Return-Path: <leight@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 65157 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2013 14:16:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 19 Feb 2013 14:16:59 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=leight@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=leight@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.169 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: leight@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.212.169 mail-wi0-f169.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.212.169] ([209.85.212.169:46825] helo=mail-wi0-f169.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 3E/09-17768-A5983215 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:16:59 -0500
Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id l13so5058782wie.4
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:16:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=Rbs/9QzoxlWlIUCr7s4XyOME1hm79+wpZSoRtkqp3Qk=;
        b=UL3Ji3SbImmn20TsNNJnCKCkvpApACjlpqsKBZAPhzA6kVPgew9aoHvHWEch/Nrv6L
         yBaQoAcP8jUmF7VxARCvAbhmrcw+5EnvM+w5pekCi3yHGfCn5WYFWc52tevmz6juQVDH
         R3CnEjt9T7gSqS8sFiPoFu8LQsv44XrQsLfucCi9cxDuR5+dbstvdv9ZYbC+ofYGSzre
         hYwsxAw0D6XkGqdcNqCvt5f/yjg5e8CFTNCBqN337E9D+PBdK6xy1pIw0+RMHegj4iOD
         6bIc+YaN8Fc1OsQTTAzHD2oHi50oPbfIPwV8XGrpsg/eGgt+11iQhX34yHaJJrNzbDfe
         XBQw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.19.97 with SMTP id d1mr26534371wje.52.1361283408670;
 Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:16:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.2.209 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:16:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3EBB0AF2-A114-4652-806B-C50DD8F9557D@inviqa.com>
References: <CAESVnVo1z2RA=87GjJa9onW-i91wW_fQ=unED=bDK=LmrKwJ=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADq_CxqBXzcippi6RynuZDH0b5Fjgc5WN9i6+46KZPPSpV-JRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8490FC41-2696-4948-83A1-3931674183B0@gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1302191317590.5054@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
	<3EBB0AF2-A114-4652-806B-C50DD8F9557D@inviqa.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:16:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPwsocECUoCp_joTsazyDK61tabPZ=yx+ffiYbigtyS3FH9zZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcello Duarte <mduarte@inviqa.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d9a6d032ef504d6147ed0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Short syntax for anonymous functions
From: leight@gmail.com (Leigh)

--047d7b5d9a6d032ef504d6147ed0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>
>
> I can understand that If you haven't tried to write a tool like
> capistrano, rspec, chef, puppet, etc, etc in PHP you probably won't see
> much value in implementing such things.
>
>
Your RFC doesn't go to great lengths to explain the value either. Pretend
the reader has no experience with any of those tools you mention, pretend
the only language they know is PHP, please explain where the value for this
syntax is in PHP?

I find the existing syntax easy to understand. I find the proposed syntax
disproportionally difficult and unintuitive in relation to any benefit it
is supposed to give.


> What is superfluous for is useful for other users. It would be useful
> building DSL. At my company we use loads of ruby tools for deploying,
> provisioning, etc. just because of the DSL they provide. The array short
> syntax was great news. Adding a short syntax for closures would make it
> possible to write such scripts in PHP =96 where the syntax would not stan=
d on
> its way.
>
>
<insert PHP is not Ruby rhetoric>

If Ruby is the right tool for the job, and PHP is not the right tool for
the job, the answer to which language to use seems obvious right?

I disagree wholeheartedly that this proposed syntax would make code in any
way more readable, or maintainable.

--047d7b5d9a6d032ef504d6147ed0--