Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:87966
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.43 as permitted sender)
To: Nikita Nefedov <inefedor@gmail.com>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <BLU436-SMTP13020F8CE8795C628BDC665E26B0@phx.gbl>
 <55E4C19F.4060704@gmail.com> <op.x384rtfxc9evq2@nikita-pc>
Message-ID: <55E4F029.10104@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:24:09 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <op.x384rtfxc9evq2@nikita-pc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Short Closures
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> in this RFC. The main addition (which is extended by that btw) is making
> the syntax shorter. Which, in turn, makes it easier to write and read

Shrtr dsnt lwys mks thngs esr 2 rd.
Sometimes it's quite the opposite.

> It would be much easier to read and write with the short syntax:
> 
>   $collection = array_filter(array_map((Type $el) ~> $el->getStuff(),
> $collection));

I disagree. It is very hard in this syntax so see where function call
starts and where it ends, especially if there are more that one
parameter and/or more than one closure.

> Just because, I'll say it, the less symbols you have to read the faster
> you'll read it. To some extent, of course, a counter-example being Perl
> language. But I don't think that we are even close to it.

Yes, in this instance we are. And that's not a good thing.

> Your point about capturing too much if you have too much in the global
> scope is legit but in this case I'd say two things: you can still use
> long closure syntax, and second you have a problem with global scope not
> short closures.

No, I don't have a problem with global scope - this proposal has a
problem with any scope that contains many variables. Actually, virtually
every scope contains more variables than closures need. Without this
capture there is no problem.

> You see the main use case for anon. functions is when you need a
> *lightweight* callback for something. If it were a fat function I'd

And capturing whole scope makes it anything but lightweight, especially
if you have big scope.

> probably make it named and write tests for it. But when it's a small
> function, often consisting from only one expression it kinda bothers me
> when the body of this function takes less keystrokes than 'function' and
> 'return' keywords...

If keystrokes are a problem, there are lots of solutions - like IDEs
that allow to define macros. Saving keystrokes at the cost of
readability never was a principle in PHP, and I don't think we should
start now.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com