Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88409 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 54665 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2015 15:16:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Sep 2015 15:16:14 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 94.13.88.124 unknown Received: from [94.13.88.124] ([94.13.88.124:20372] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 28/4D-56639-BB071065 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:16:12 -0400 Message-ID: <28.4D.56639.BB071065@pb1.pair.com> To: internals@lists.php.net References: Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:16:08 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/38.0 SeaMonkey/2.35 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 94.13.88.124 Subject: Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) Hi Bob, Bob Weinand wrote: > Hey, > > Thanks for all your feedback in the discussion thread! > > So, before I start the vote, just two quick notes: > I've added two notes about the statement syntax and the single variable use. > Though a few people complained, I'm not switching to the ==> operator, as I noticed many people expected typehints to work (they don't due to parser limitations) when they compared to Hack's short Closures. It also allows us to differ syntax-wise [e.g. for typehints] from Hack without causing any confusion later. Which should be the smartest choice: Avoid conflicts. (If anyone strongly feels against that, he may vote no, but I would like to not bikeshed that in this Vote thread, but leave it free for eventual actual issues.) > > Now, the link to the RFC about Short Closures: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short_closures > or straight ahead to the vote: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short_closures#vote I am unhappy with the ~> syntax choice. As I've mentioned before, it's hard to type for many people, it looks too much like ->, and it's unnecessarily different from Hack's ==>, of which this RFC would otherwise be proposing a strict subset. So, I am voting against. Thanks. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/