Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69669
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52611431.7070407@googlemail.com>
References: <525C631E.1050008@gmail.com> <CAF+90c9z6Xx8GY8zPvg8x0b953oyxfBV=_5znWVX7OG4Rb7oaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <52610FFE.7020806@googlemail.com> <327CCB6F-3D5B-410E-84BB-547467E688B1@gmail.com>
 <52611431.7070407@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:06:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CALtuQzCfbZoXEFcXvm3hUjajpmePvdFHaOWKPLkvom6-7DA8+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Crypto Compress <cryptocompress@googlemail.com>
Cc: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5dba7ada870f04e901ed20
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal to deprecate create_function()
From: krebs.seb@gmail.com (Sebastian Krebs)

--047d7b5dba7ada870f04e901ed20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2013/10/18 Crypto Compress <cryptocompress@googlemail.com>

> Am 18.10.2013 12:51, schrieb Alexey Zakhlestin:
>
>  On 18.10.2013, at 14:39, Crypto Compress <cryptocompress@googlemail.com*=
*>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Am 18.10.2013 11:26, schrieb Nikita Popov:
>>>
>>>> You can even replicate the exact
>>>> behavior (minus the hiding from get_defined_functions) with just four
>>>> lines
>>>> of code (though I have no idea what you could possibly need this for):
>>>>
>>>> function create_function($params, $code) {
>>>>      static $i =3D 0;
>>>>      $name =3D "create_function_" . $i++;
>>>>      eval("function $name($params) { $code }");
>>>>      return $name;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> I tried to look on Github what people currently use create_function fo=
r,
>>>> but with little success. Nearly all results I get are uses in the php
>>>> testsuite (copied over to various projects). The only other use case I
>>>> saw
>>>> was in conjunction with the WordPress add_action() function. In this
>>>> case
>>>> the create_function call could always be replaced directly with an
>>>> anonymous function (i.e. it didn't need any magic create_function
>>>> capabilities).
>>>>
>>> shure all things can be replaced with more and verbose code. What is th=
e
>>> benefit of writing all this lines in contrast to one method call?
>>> https://github.com/phpcr/**phpcr-utils/blob/master/src/**
>>> PHPCR/Util/Console/Helper/**PhpcrCliHelper.php#L111<https://github.com/=
phpcr/phpcr-utils/blob/master/src/PHPCR/Util/Console/Helper/PhpcrCliHelper.=
php#L111>
>>>
>>> -1 for removing wrappers/abbreviations/and such
>>> +1 for bug fixing
>>>
>>
>> I think you misunderstood Nikita's proposal.
>> "all these lines" can be put in a library and your code would just
>> continue to work the way it is.
>>
>> Idea is that it is trivially implemented in userland and there is no muc=
h
>> sense to keep it in core.
>>
>
> It is possible to write most of the array functions in plain php with a
> trivial foreach. Can't see the point.


That doesn't mean, that it was useful to include some array functions into
the core. For example I still don't really get, why it was so important to
get "array_column()" into the core, whereas it is _really_ trivial in
PHP-userland [1]. In some cases it makes sense, for example for better
performance, but imo it doesn't make sense only for the sake of itself.

This said: Saying "but other xyz =85" isn't an argument :)

Regards,
Sebastian


[1] Don't want to start a discussion about that. Just needed an example.


>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


--=20
github.com/KingCrunch

--047d7b5dba7ada870f04e901ed20--