Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98106
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BLU436-SMTP190C455C4DE10B3343B44E1E24A0@phx.gbl>
References: <CAFMT4Nrt7XPMnELoAGLu=sSRCTCtzPCTaSE8HJjKfHjDXOXU_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <E6.ED.51557.B64EF885@pb1.pair.com> <3F428CA4-8211-44E6-9B60-62ADB47934B3@koalephant.com>
 <642a72cd-e322-0b22-452f-dfbd521aee02@php.net> <BLU436-SMTP4506E841E18C53E37A3CF4E24A0@phx.gbl>
 <37679ae0-eb90-2367-7fc0-8f0adf97a965@garfieldtech.com> <CAEUnE0cO04dQ6boek3GrykxXONH3cVuyUGSXUB2z5W0TK34_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a5867a6c-1427-f374-05aa-4e3c0a3876f3@gmx.de> <BLU436-SMTP190C455C4DE10B3343B44E1E24A0@phx.gbl>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 08:23:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CADyq6sJ5LJS=p3MqeMmdnB3M11Yh9G4e9rY6AW5rSXGn4r3Tcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, Michael Morris <tendoaki@gmail.com>, 
	"Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11443a36d1438f054772eb38
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--001a11443a36d1438f054772eb38
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Just throwing it in here while commuting, so it's a top-post with no
references. Saw it yesterday on reddit (!!! Reddit being useful for once
!!!): $callback = |$x| => $x ** 2;

On 31 Jan 2017 22:44, "Bob Weinand" <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Am 31.01.2017 um 19:41 schrieb Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>:
> >
> > On 31.01.2017 at 19:16, Michael Morris wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Larry Garfield <
> larry@garfieldtech.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> My question is why there's no mention of HHVM short closures, or the
> >>> previous RFC to take that approach.  See:
> >>>
> >>> https://docs.hhvm.com/hack/lambdas/introduction
> >>
> >> For what it's worth I'd rather look at
> >>
> >> array_map( $x ==> $x + 1);
> >>
> >> than
> >>
> >> array_map( fn($x) => $x + 1 )
> >>
> >> Not to mention the former isn't a bc break.
> >
> > Neither is supposed to work, though. :)
> >
> > Anyhow, I'm not sure whether I'd prefer
> >
> >  array_map($a, $b, $c ==> $a + $b + $c, $a1, $a2, $a3)
> >
> > over
> >
> >  array_map(fn($a, $b, $c) => $a + $b + $c, $a1, $a2, $a3)
> >
> > or maybe
> >
> >  array_map(fn $a, $b, $c => $a + $b + $c, $a1, $a2, $a3)
> >
> > Somehow, I tend to like a trailing keyword for better left-to-right
> > readability.
> >
> > --
> > Christoph M. Becker
>
> The RFC states that we're needing some form of a prefix in order to avoid
> implementing gigantic lexer hacks.
> HHVM internally implements it by parsing some part of the syntax INSIDE
> the lexer and then emitting a token before the first parameter to tell the
> parser where a short Closure begins.
> Having a normal terminal symbol easily allows the parser to detect short
> Closures, without any hacks.
>
> It is just not a practical option from a technical point of view, and thus
> not worth even considering.
>
> Bob

--001a11443a36d1438f054772eb38--