Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98067
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.66 as permitted sender)
Sender: Michael Wallner <mike.php.net@gmail.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAFMT4Nrt7XPMnELoAGLu=sSRCTCtzPCTaSE8HJjKfHjDXOXU_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <E6.ED.51557.B64EF885@pb1.pair.com>
 <3F428CA4-8211-44E6-9B60-62ADB47934B3@koalephant.com>
Message-ID: <642a72cd-e322-0b22-452f-dfbd521aee02@php.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:23:33 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3F428CA4-8211-44E6-9B60-62ADB47934B3@koalephant.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="5OpWWxLidmg9CCVAt4FLraP9ANPcBuTV4"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions
From: mike@php.net (Michael Wallner)

--5OpWWxLidmg9CCVAt4FLraP9ANPcBuTV4
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="j59sL8Bjajba8KsldcrpVkkwmsN1txQcX";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <642a72cd-e322-0b22-452f-dfbd521aee02@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions
References: <CAFMT4Nrt7XPMnELoAGLu=sSRCTCtzPCTaSE8HJjKfHjDXOXU_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <E6.ED.51557.B64EF885@pb1.pair.com>
 <3F428CA4-8211-44E6-9B60-62ADB47934B3@koalephant.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F428CA4-8211-44E6-9B60-62ADB47934B3@koalephant.com>

--j59sL8Bjajba8KsldcrpVkkwmsN1txQcX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 31/01/17 05:53, Stephen Reay wrote:
> Hi Andrea, All,
>
>> On 31 Jan 2017, at 08:12, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>>
>> Is it necessary to introduce a new keyword, fn?
>>
>> I think you'd get a similar benefit from:
>>
>>    function($x) =3D> $arr[$x]
>>
>> Likewise, is it necessary to restrict auto-capture to the =3D>
>> syntax? Couldn't we allow the following?
>>
>>    function ($x) {
>>        return $arr[$x];
>>    }
>>
>
> I agree that the `fn` keyword isn=E2=80=99t really necessary. I=E2=80=99=
ve never
> quite understood how arrow functions with implied returns etc are
> supposed to make for *more* readable code, but if they=E2=80=99re going=
 to be
> part of the language please at least keep some consistency with
> regular closures.

Yes, I also think that keeping the function keyword would be better.

>=20
> In the case that regular closures got auto-capture, would a
> `use($foo, $bar, $baz)` segment on a closure still be honoured (i.e.
> disable auto-capture), and would it have any impact (positive or
> negative) on performance/memory usage? After several years of JS
> closure =E2=80=98fun=E2=80=99 I kind of like that with PHP you only inh=
erit the
> variables you explicitly `use()` in closures.

Wouldn't there be just too many existing closures, which do not use
`use` but (maybe) expect a clean scope?

--=20
Regards,
Mike


--j59sL8Bjajba8KsldcrpVkkwmsN1txQcX--

--5OpWWxLidmg9CCVAt4FLraP9ANPcBuTV4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEHsPHHd1jWDGjN9aESA4+FLCkx8cFAliQZaUACgkQSA4+FLCk
x8dVcAf/fVSxleq/YRjj3RhpovmNomxvId1p1l7cVpAZxg5kNlvm94QHlSZHe29L
garpxUdoj1r3EPpU5SzRAxI8EidhTC/Af5XQ9DAVrd6/LNoqQnYqpYw73PxtzOB4
EO6Mee4XvRo4sQKRiYIJZbHMeHKQ/OLmO4JeviP4MkRsRgtEdyaN9j7LXUXwDE8n
QreNJdcQnr6AofDWm3IlN8mQ8LStnvHr89xSpC4luA32R1a7TukqczPlWD3oZ3YJ
4wRg+j/mMsU/MQqn8wliZF3lfaV7aXm/QmH50EiWJTSS61HOeEusX/koKhj+9aC3
rxwAuKtAkV6FXzq+cp52J5NAlNLWJw==
=U7Ls
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5OpWWxLidmg9CCVAt4FLraP9ANPcBuTV4--