Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88400
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BLU436-SMTP156E8D7D141A710541FCA0FE2450@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU436-SMTP156E8D7D141A710541FCA0FE2450@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 10:42:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKs572XtvV0=ib6hiwDD3rKOaVxxbCwmU=TL58vCbc7e5t5w4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b450496fb7ff4052051f97f
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures
From: ppetermann80@gmail.com (Peter Petermann)

--047d7b450496fb7ff4052051f97f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi,

The introduction claims:

"he current implementation of anonymous functions in PHP is quite verbose
compared to other languages. That makes using anonymous functions be more
difficult than it could be, as there is both more to type, and more
importantly the current implementation makes it hard to read (and so
maintain) code that uses anonymous functions."

I personally feel that the "verbosity" of the way PHP is doing closures at
the moment is a good thing. It is much more readable and clear what is
happening than with ~>.
I further believe that the automatic binding of variables creates a lot
*less* clear and maintainable code, easy to be misunderstood and prone for
mistakes.

Which to me means the Proposal is actually doing the opposite of what it
claims to improve.

hence, i voted against it.

regards,
Peter Petermann

--047d7b450496fb7ff4052051f97f--