Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76439
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mike.php.net@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CA+9eiLuor_RnbKwot=8aMcPQHMQ0NEBfhREW==Hxv6Jkyne6Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D17EB1B8-7A7E-419B-AF55-0ADCAB4CFEB3@ajf.me>
	<CA+9eiLsPg4-QY_M6ddV+5N=e4fddpyw8ux3mwPxrcJMVHM4+mQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<EBA37E12-4F95-4524-A900-48AB8CDA3674@ajf.me>
	<CA+9eiLtiQezsdBL+hbM_ynWzCTkGhp6_5Ux7Cg5wS8kjLo-XfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<35D0408F-BCE1-436C-AFB3-71EDC2A35E1F@ajf.me>
	<CA+9eiLuor_RnbKwot=8aMcPQHMQ0NEBfhREW==Hxv6Jkyne6Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:47:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CALJZF3jLyFJuW52nxzXs3tCYpUxELsyy1aPwcf7p8MP9RW6NGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11349f14751df5050060a9bd
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Closure::call and Function Referencing as Closures
From: mike@php.net (Michael Wallner)

--001a11349f14751df5050060a9bd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

How about 'new Function()'?

Might be a WTF that it creates an instance of Closure, though.
 On 11 Aug 2014 22:32, "Dmitry Stogov" <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:

> We didn't keep pointers to functions in opcodes (however it possible in
> some cases).
> Instead we use cache_slots in op_array->run_time_cache array to keep
> pointers to classes and functions.
> Anyway, it must be quite easy to extend the patch.
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 11 Aug 2014, at 20:07, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > may be:
> > >
> > > $a =3D function strlen;
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > $a =3D function(stren);
> > >
> > > but these are not excellent as well :(
> >
> > I wanted to do the first, but it caused a shift/reduce conflict in the
> > parser due to ambiguity with function () {}. The latter has been
> suggested
> > also. Both might be possible with an AST, but I=E2=80=99m not really ke=
en on
> > either, they=E2=80=99re quite verbose.
> >
> > > I may implement this part if the RFC will be accepted.
> > > Actually, most of the code may be just copy-pasted from
> > > ZEND_INIT_STATIC_METHOD_CALL.
> >
> > Interesting, I=E2=80=99d certainly appreciate it. :) One thing to note =
is that
> the
> > patch is currently implemented in the simplest way possible, wherein it
> > just stores constant strings in the opcode. You could optimise it by
> > binding ahead-of-time and passing the zend_function pointer itself, but=
 I
> > didn=E2=80=99t want to do that as it complicated things.
> >
> > --
> > Andrea Faulds
> > http://ajf.me/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--001a11349f14751df5050060a9bd--