Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88601
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.177 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAFMT4NrOsRm_6Qb11cbtsq0H-_OYugu-u-3Q+EC9J3Ze9BNAYg@mail.gmail.com> <5606D0EB.3060106@gmail.com> <CAEYWF=7-=ToVrBK7y1NcOtSU9iB5BpK=3iuyX-5i3GkGvMow-A@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMT4NqA-ZrhUuGmhiCyzVAwd0s=ecQ3fz5EkhXv2F_q-w5h+g@mail.gmail.com> <560D0F94.8060009@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:07:43 +0300
Cc: rowan.collins@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <op.x5tqi5uhc9evq2@nikita-300e4c-300e5c-300e7c>
In-Reply-To: <560D0F94.8060009@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Arrow function expressions in PHP
From: inefedor@gmail.com ("Nikita Nefedov")

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 13:48:52 +0300, Rowan Collins  
<rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote:

> Levi Morrison wrote on 01/10/2015 04:06:
>> I'm going to ask everyone to stop saying that auto-closing is bad
>> unless they also provide a demonstration of why it was bad.
>
> Please see my e-mail from last night, or Rasmus's in the original  
> thread. It is "bad" (or, controversial) because it is a fundamental  
> change to PHP's scoping rules, which currently treat all variables  
> denoted by "$foo" as local to the current function, without exception.

And yet we have super-globals. You can also access variables of one  
script's global scope from another script's global scope without importing  
or anything like that. I wouldn't say that PHP has or follows any  
idiomatic "way" of how scopes should work, it's just evolutionary.


>> I'm also going to ask everyone to stop suggesting new syntax for
>> importing variables. If use() is a pain then auto-importing the used
>> variables is a good solution. If it's not a pain why are you
>> suggesting new syntax?
>
> Because the feature is being described as "short closures", or as a new  
> syntax, so people are looking for ways to make closures shorter without  
> changing the functionality.
>
> If auto-capture is the main feature you are interested in, and syntax  
> just a by-product, then it might be sensible to make that clear. As a  
> straw man, it would be possible to have auto-capture closures with no  
> new syntax at all, e.g. function($x) use(*) { return $x * $y; }

I believe Levi's and Bob's intentions are not to introduce auto-capture  
but to add short closures, auto-capture being a tool that works best to  
help in achieving this. `use(*)` just as long as `use($y)`, and the  
shorter version where you need to separate args from uses with semicolon  
will be harder to read (ex.: `fn($x; $y) => $x * $y` vs `fn($x) => $x *  
$y` - it's not obvious at all what semicolon does. Whereas with auto  
capture you can at least guess that this variable will be captured from  
defining scope, if you don't know how this feature works).