Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93362
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain basereality.com from 209.85.213.46 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR0201MB1786ACA85B5D9A04778C0E1CBF770@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CA+kxMuQxSj2enCXxZ50qgR-ehrvLEGJFjoc+xcyosN=6zowtjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CY1PR0201MB1786ACA85B5D9A04778C0E1CBF770@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 21:12:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuRipNG7ODmXhDHZji7iOXstq0dze_kQQzBpRbWy28oYYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Closure from callable
From: danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)

On 16 May 2016 at 09:31, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, I didn't follow the RFC discussion.
> In general I like the idea, but why not to use Closure constructor?
>

Hi Dmitry,

Several small to medium sized reasons that make me think it's the best way.

As Marco said, constructors cannot be passed as callbles, which for
whatever reason both myself and he seem to encounter as a problem more
than the average programmer. I had hoped to address this with this
RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/callableconstructors - but the feedback
on that was massively negative so far.

Second, it's quite likely we're going to have other ways of creating
closures in the future. Having a default constructor that is 'special'
above the other named constructors is a source of API sadness for me.

> would look more readable than

I actually seem to like named constructors more than default
constructors, and am totally used to reading them. That may be down to
my dislike of how constructors have special rules in being a little
bit static, and also being instance methods at the same time.

cheers
Dan