Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76443
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.220.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALJZF3jLyFJuW52nxzXs3tCYpUxELsyy1aPwcf7p8MP9RW6NGQ@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>
	<CALJZF3jLyFJuW52nxzXs3tCYpUxELsyy1aPwcf7p8MP9RW6NGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 02:13:18 +0400
Message-ID: <CA+9eiLvgD9S+QE6rJ+tZKCUb6xfuK6rT8q4QUo1wzuFPbfD3qA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118263cbb3fcd050061dc59
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Closure::call and Function Referencing as Closures
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)

--089e0118263cbb3fcd050061dc59
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

it's ambiguous with regular object creation.

Thanks. Dmitry.


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Michael Wallner <mike@php.net> wrote:

> 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 k=
een 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 i=
t
>> > just stores constant strings in the opcode. You could optimise it by
>> > binding ahead-of-time and passing the zend_function pointer itself, bu=
t
>> I
>> > didn=E2=80=99t want to do that as it complicated things.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Andrea Faulds
>> > http://ajf.me/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>

--089e0118263cbb3fcd050061dc59--