Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88653
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain thomasbley.de from 85.13.137.24 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: ALL-INKL Webmail 2.11
In-Reply-To: <CAB6YZuyqFXCJz=Gg6nT-FyBhyCR9GU+R7K5ijgq9LU4dG9Ex6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFMT4Nq2Ki-yXAe8BqX35=+qg=2xO3VVUL=Ss01BO=Y6WTnk3A@mail.gmail.com><CAB6YZuyqFXCJz=Gg6nT-FyBhyCR9GU+R7K5ijgq9LU4dG9Ex6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: morrison.levi@gmail.com, pajousek@gmail.com
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <20151003143852.91D2B26068A@dd15934.kasserver.com>
Date: Sat,  3 Oct 2015 16:38:52 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Arrow Functions
From: mails@thomasbley.de ("Thomas Bley")


Pavel Kouřil wrote on 03.10.2015 10:06:

> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I messaged the list about this feature before I had the RFC written up
>> for it. The RFC[1] is slightly different from what I proposed in the
>> previous thread, so please read the RFC to make sure you understand
>> what is being proposed before replying here.
>>
>> Here's a small example:
>>
>>     $y = 10;
>>     $result = array_map(function($x) => $x + $y, [1, 2, 3]);
>>
>>     // $result is [11, 12, 13]
>>
>> Thanks for people who have participated in conversation so far, as
>> well as those who participated in Bob's short closures proposal as
>> well.
>>
>>   [1]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/arrow_functions
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
> 
> Hello,
> 
> thanks for another proposal on this feature. :)
> 
> As I said in the previous e-mails, I'm not really fan of the
> "function" prefix - because it has the same prefix as the "long
> declarations". Just by removing the { } for =>, the autobinding also
> goes into place* and also only one expression is allowed, but the
> "beggining" stays the same (that being function ($x)).
> 
> The function keyword also "collides" with the future scope with
> multiple statements.
> 
> function ($x) use ($a, $b, $c) { $z = foo($a, $b); return $c($z, $x); }
> function ($x) => { $z = foo($a, $b); return $c($z, $x); }
> 
> Now the possible confussion with the different scoping rules would be
> even bigger, IMHO. (Disclaimer: I am huge fan of those autoimports and
> think that without them, the RFC doesn't technically bring anything
> important.)
> 
> Also, I'm not a fan of the "fn" prefix, because then you would have
> two ways of writing "function", and people would probably want being
> able to use "fn" for named functions as well, bringing inconsistency
> into language. Also, this would requiring making "fn" a reserved word,
> breaking some applications - wouldn't it?
> 
> Personally  I'd prefer the \ prefix you also mention as possible in
> your RFC. It's also AFAIK used to denote lamba expression in another
> languages already, so it might be familiar for some developers?
> 
> \(int $x) => $x * $y;
> \() => foo()
> \($x) => \($y) => \($z)
> 
> Yeah, this looks pretty nice.
> 
> Althought I'd honestly really prefer the Bob's syntax, but I
> understand that you don't want to make some engine hacks to make it
> working - but from userland developer's POV, that one was the best
> (speaking as someone, who would use the syntax daily).
> 
> --
> 
> Regards
> Pavel Kouřil
> 
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> 

I would prefer to keep the current syntax and just a different keyword for autobindung:

function ($x) use ($a, $b, $c) { $z = foo($a, $b); return $c($z, $x); }
function ($x) autobind|autouse|use_all|autoimport|etc. { $z = foo($a, $b); return $c($z, $x); }

Regards
Thomas