Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88473 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 9164 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2015 10:57:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Sep 2015 10:57:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain telia.com from 81.236.60.156 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 81.236.60.156 v-smtpout3.han.skanova.net Received: from [81.236.60.156] ([81.236.60.156:36589] helo=v-smtpout3.han.skanova.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 68/C8-33598-907D3065 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 06:57:14 -0400 Received: from [192.168.7.6] ([195.198.188.252]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id f4D7ZS4opeMwUf4D7ZXKLS; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:57:10 +0200 To: Stanislav Malyshev References: <28.4D.56639.BB071065@pb1.pair.com> <5603A202.4070003@gmail.com> Cc: PHP internals Message-ID: <5603D706.3040503@telia.com> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:57:10 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5603A202.4070003@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfNcfHysvZI8Vcllk0iPp3ukdgz0I1hxVznjJkS50/VQ9PHZS9Y94ct6LysI2FnRw53ntEcM5c/HZMza/D3l9ACuix1ktqtX3bP31BPWq0bIoLixEDdaPgt9T5IfeYYAL0/mRsPCJlrL3at/ECKFsuz6SSITmi7vrVo3x7IVn1UlZOBpio4rBiKtTiDLXk+wZv9mjELNOQD3luXZhxmHUKjPxw8+YQRs36lYRpz/VWtIN Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures From: bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Bj=c3=b6rn_Larsson?=) Den 2015-09-24 kl. 09:10, skrev Stanislav Malyshev: > Hi! > >> As a PHP developer, I agree with the possible confusion between `->` and >> `~>`. >> `==>` is a better choice IMHO, for its similarity with Hacklang syntax, as >> said previously. > I'm getting a feeling the RFC could be more successful if syntax was > made a choice between ~> and ==> as a voting option. How does one then address that this RFC only covers a subset of Hacklang functionality when having the same operator? -- //Björn Larsson