Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88087
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.173 as permitted sender)
References: <BLU436-SMTP13020F8CE8795C628BDC665E26B0@phx.gbl>
 <61.90.26858.306BCE55@pb1.pair.com> <55ED636D.8010808@gmail.com>
 <CAAyV7nFE6qyj0FH7VwF+v0_sF6LnXcnoyt+uEOMYSgAD9yu94Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <55ED6932.7080107@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 11:38:42 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nFE6qyj0FH7VwF+v0_sF6LnXcnoyt+uEOMYSgAD9yu94Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Short Closures
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

Anthony Ferrara wrote on 07/09/2015 11:23:
> Being completely fair, doesn't this actually make HackLang a great
> test-bed for PHP features? If they implement something, and people
> hate it/it sucks, boom. But if people love it, it's a no brainer for
> us to "steal".
>
> I don't think we should blindly accept anything because it's in hack,
> but the fact that it's there means we also shouldn't diverge "just
> because". If it makes sense to copy it, why not?
>
> The one thing I think we absolutely MUST avoid is changing behaviour
> slightly but keeping same syntax.
>
> For example, if we used ==> for short closures but used a different
> semantic. That would be *really* bad. That leaves us with either
> taking their semantics whole sale for the feature, or creating our own
> syntax. That's what Bob has proposed here.
>
> Overall, I think we should steal outright what makes sense (I use
> steal weakly here, it's collaborative). We should take inspiration
> where it makes sense, and we should forge our own road where it makes
> sense.
>
> I have not a single ounce of reservation about "giving authors of Hack
> a disproportionate influence on PHP". They are not being given a blank
> check, no more than any other contributor is. But we also shouldn't be
> stupid and ignore what they are doing because of pride (or whatever
> else).
>
> My $0.02
>
> Anthony


I agree 100% with this; you've put it much better than I did.

The only additional scenario I can see is where Hack's initial 
definition of a feature has some problem, and rather than copying that 
problem into PHP, we might fix it and leave Hack to do the same when 
their process allows (I don't know what the BC policy on Hack is). That 
would be an exception where keeping syntax but varying semantics *might* 
make sense, if the communication between teams was clear that the 
semantics would be realigned later.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]