Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76777
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: thegreatall@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4NoxiEnJfwDah5+K8tbfpjsEiohWEgKvR_CKSeV1b3ePRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C751B275-9F65-40F4-AAA7-F14645DA4CC0@ajf.me>
	<CAMVzVHOUMKZtDhohL=9gRcUz__D3bh9KFit3625B0k2dFAwmCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMT4NoxiEnJfwDah5+K8tbfpjsEiohWEgKvR_CKSeV1b3ePRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:22:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMVzVHMVR0xJ6k2kdvzA_cuYTueyhPsvZiz_VHoZCTCwSXREww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c20c4cc83c70050128a289
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Closure::apply() (re-opening)
From: nathanbruer@gmail.com (Nathan Bruer)

--001a11c20c4cc83c70050128a289
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I suppose calling it statically a user would probably want to recycle the
same function/closure, so binding/calling it real time would have little
impact if done properly.


On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Nathan <nathan.bruer@starin.biz> wrote:
> > The only thing I'd suggest is like I said in the last email is to make
> the
> > syntax more like Closure::bind(Closure $closure, object $newThis, [mixed
> > $newScope = 'static']) and make it Closure::apply(mixed $newObjectOrScope
> > [, mixed ... $parameters]) $newObjectOrScope would then allow a user to
> > supply a class name or an object. If class name is passed you have access
> > to "static::", "self::", and "parent::" inside the function everything
> else
> > works as described in the RFC.
> >
> > Give the ability to call a closure as a static method of a class or a
> > normal method of an object. Right now the only way to do it is doing
> > binding and creating new closures and calling those closures then
> > destroying them.
>
> I think you are confused. This proposal basically binds the closure to
> the new object and invokes it immediately. I genuinely don't see how
> it being statically bound to the object will make a difference. Please
> elaborate.
>

--001a11c20c4cc83c70050128a289--