Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88533
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain telia.com from 81.236.60.154 cause and error)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Pavel_Kou=c5=99il?= <pajousek@gmail.com>
References: <BLU436-SMTP156E8D7D141A710541FCA0FE2450@phx.gbl>
 <CAB6YZuyWTRJ-E5dwR-UNsV-Ext8kZhdSGANH3m9UhfNMeA48yw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <5609B140.1050102@telia.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 23:29:36 +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: <CAB6YZuyWTRJ-E5dwR-UNsV-Ext8kZhdSGANH3m9UhfNMeA48yw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures
From: bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Bj=c3=b6rn_Larsson?=)

Den 2015-09-26 kl. 09:18, skrev Pavel Kouřil:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> 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
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
> Hello,
>
> since the RFC doesn't look like it will pass, I have a question about
> RFC process - will you be able to "fix" the RFC and submit it for vote
> again with targeting PHP 7.1?
>
> The biggest issues seem to be
> - ~> operator instead of ==>
> - missing type hints
> - auto imports
>
> If probably the first two would be resolved, then maybe the RFC could
> get accepted? I personally don't understand the 3rd complain, since
> having to use() everything would make it "not-so-short closures".
>
> I also remember people not liking the option not to have parenthesis
> with single parameter. I was thinking about this, and with the type
> hints, it would be probably better anyways to have the ( ) required,
> so that would be just a single use case where they wouldn't be
> required - so is there a point in keeping this special use case?
>
> Regards
> Pavel Kouřil
>
A good strategy. Suspect that fixing type hints & reach consensus
on auto import or not is enough to make it pass, maybe also
parenthesis.

I don't think ~> or ==> is cruical but then I personally favour ~>
because I find it more distinct, not confusing it with => or <=>.
Also having ==> might lead the thought that functionality is like
== vs ===. Hm... or if someday in the future comparison operator
without type juggling is needed.

Regards //Björn Larsson