Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88108
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <8E.91.34134.B57DDE55@pb1.pair.com>
References: <BLU436-SMTP13020F8CE8795C628BDC665E26B0@phx.gbl>
	<CAESVnVq9kBhK_uEH2-HvQN4Wv8DVSnwc9ukRjrQ0KNjUbaAD7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<55E77CA9.7050609@gmail.com>
	<CAB6YZux4uYG7u0XRc_56MWFo+8G_h_VZZbWhCDVqA7hdu5XSpg@mail.gmail.com>
	<55E81959.6040305@gmail.com>
	<CAB6YZuwimHWkh8ddvkagmXRQVCK-joUSmMYKKxxjx22BbktSRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEU6NAdfF0w383CNF46B8-Ly2Me+nzwpDFUvjeR4ZHk3x1MoUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB6YZuwfGhh=EBJySNndtRjstpbvGxvHoWKV=5GUNrx8Prc1tA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALLYd6TduOcvHW8Dr_0bg6eTLL6y-WTt2O6AstP3cXQxECi_uQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMT4NrCdc-mmBgaKDCartptkPAd=WLxM_ss4Rn-8teW4mNd6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ED817B.5030109@gmail.com>
	<CAFMT4Np7yLn6AqfGbUyibHxr8hrD9ds2s43tToifQV1wxck-Hw@mail.gmail.com>
	<8E.91.34134.B57DDE55@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:05:29 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4Nqc4SFGuEfYZW2c54QkUrK4PK7OCcXvyn8CaEf3RcsdJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Short Closures
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

> I think a possible improvement might be a generalised syntax, similar to
> that used for constants, that lets you use any \Closure object to define a
> function or method. Thus:
>
>     function reduce = $initial ~> $fn ~> $input ~> {
>         // ...
>     };

I like this but we're getting a bit too far in the future RFC
territory. But bringing this back to the current proposal I think that
the curly brace syntax should stay. I much prefer this:

    function reduce = $initial ~> $fn ~> $input ~> {
        $accumulator = $initial;
        foreach ($input as $value) {
            $accumulator = $fn($accumulator, $value);
        }
        return $accumulator;
    };

To this:

    function reduce = $initial ~> $fn ~> function($input) use($initial, $fn) {
        $accumulator = $initial;
        foreach ($input as $value) {
            $accumulator = $fn($accumulator, $value);
        }
        return $accumulator;
    };

So while assigning the result to a named function (instead of a
variable) is out of scope of this RFC I think it demonstrates the
value of the block syntax which I think we should keep. I've said this
several times now, so I won't say it again :)

> This has that advantage that it isn't just useful for when you want to use
> the short syntax. You can also use it when you're obtaining a Closure in
> some novel way, perhaps a higher-order function:
>
>     // where "add" is a function that adds two numbers
>     function sum = reduce(0)("add");
>
> With this, you don't have to write a wrapper function, or use a global
> variable, to define a proper top-level function.

I like this as well but again we're getting a bit too far away from
the current proposal.