Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88622 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 54191 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2015 20:26:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Oct 2015 20:26:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain telia.com from 81.236.60.154 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 81.236.60.154 v-smtpout1.han.skanova.net Received: from [81.236.60.154] ([81.236.60.154:46742] helo=v-smtpout1.han.skanova.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C4/05-26330-5F69D065 for ; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 16:26:30 -0400 Received: from [192.168.7.4] ([195.198.188.252]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id hkQsZrX699HQVhkQsZ1VMX; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 22:26:26 +0200 To: Levi Morrison References: Cc: PHP internals Message-ID: <560D96F4.9000803@telia.com> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:26:28 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfIcWmpUPkIFHbN0FDGukuV+2P/03b6i2szm+ymwpkJhj/gbNBhvFXSwl+WgwzQDbUWTM/rUh/XBu6QaqR5v0VubhG06aTjBFGgNYi0BFjgYNGYGOESux7kk14BPe5YG7evWyoMOXMod1yPddhVemAxpU8WOowZdjHlq3NqyO2Srojh1g1+bcuzBbUjaB5dFXvz7rgbfT0u25ETevFhJdjN8= Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Arrow function expressions in PHP From: bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Bj=c3=b6rn_Larsson?=) Hi, Given the recent discussion about async/await keyword should one also consider short closures supporting asynchronous functionality in the future? Stumbled upon it when reading about Async Lambdas in Hacklang manual. Regards //Björn Larsson Den 2015-09-26 kl. 18:17, skrev Levi Morrison: > (Email in gist format: > https://gist.github.com/morrisonlevi/fa7984c04ff176b5a87c) > > In EcmaScript 2015 (ES6) the expression `(x) => x * 2` means to create > an anonymous function with one parameter `x` that will return `x * 2`. > For example: > > (x) => x * 2 > // is equivalent to: > function(x) { return x * 2; } > > A modified example from [documentation by Mozilla Developer > Network][1] page demonstrates how they are useful: > > var a = [ > "Hydrogen", > "Helium", > "Lithium", > "Beryl­lium" > ]; > > var a2 = a.map(function(s){ return s.length }); // pre-ES6 > > var a3 = a.map((s) => s.length); // ES6 > > There has been some talk about how we can use arrow function > expressions in PHP. In PHP using the same syntax would have some > ambiguities: > > // Does this mean: > // 1. Create an array key with the result of `($x)` and a value > with `$x * 2` > // 2. Create an array with one value that is an anonymous function > [($x) => $x * 2] > > // Does this mean: > // 1. Yield a key with the result of `($x)` and a value with `$x * 2` > // 2. Yield an anonymous function > yield ($x) => $x * 2; > > This is why Bob Weinand [proposed][2] using `~>` instead of `=>`. > However, if we allow type declarations there is another issue. In the > definition `(Type &$x) => expr` the `(Type &$var)` part can parse as > "take constant `Type` and variable `$var` and do a bitwise and `&` > operation." After that the `=>` will be an unexpected token. Even > though the rule would be invalid the parser doesn't know that far > ahead it will error and it doesn't know which rule to pick. Changing > the token from `=>` to `~>` doesn't affect this issue. > > We could solve the first ambiguities with prefering the current > meaning with `key => value` and requiring the meaning with closures to > wrap them in `()`. We could solve the latter ambiguity with a > backtracking parser since it will eventually error and then know to > pick the other rule. However, I really think this is a bad idea. > > So how can we have shorter closures without this mess? One simple way > is to require the `function` prefix: > > // clearly an array with an anonymous function > [function($x) => $x * 2]; > > // clearly yields an anonymous function > yield function($x) => $x * 2; > > // clearly an anonymous function > function(Type &$x) => expr; > > Requiring the `function` prefix mitigates one of the value parts of > arrow functions: they are short. > > Another option would be to resolve the ambiguities with keys and > values but to change the type information in parameters: > > (&$input: array) => expr > > By putting the type after the variable (similar to how we declare > return types) we no longer have the issues with mis-parsing. Of > course, that's not how we declare parameter types currently. I think > we would need to permit it everywhere and deprecate the current syntax > with the type being prefixed. (By deprecate I mean in PHP 8 and not > remove it until PHP 9 or later) > > I would prefer that we shorten the `function` keyword to `fn`: > > [fn($x) => $x * 2] > > This preserves the shortness of the expression while providing > unambiguous, simple parsing. Of course, now we have a similar issue: > we have both `fn` and `function`. > > What concerns do you have about `fn($x) => $x * 2` or `function($x) => > $x * 2`? I will be writing a proper RFC later but I wanted to get > discussion going now. > > [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Functions/Arrow_functions > [2]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short_closures >