Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98142
Return-Path: <ajf@ajf.me>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 76784 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2017 19:18:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 3 Feb 2017 19:18:16 -0000
X-Host-Fingerprint: 137.50.185.62 oa-edu-185-62.wireless.abdn.ac.uk  
Received: from [137.50.185.62] ([137.50.185.62:4005] helo=localhost.localdomain)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 19/45-38491-677D4985 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 14:18:14 -0500
Message-ID: <19.45.38491.677D4985@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAFMT4Nrt7XPMnELoAGLu=sSRCTCtzPCTaSE8HJjKfHjDXOXU_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4Nq_vbCRmMZ2OSDN7_VqGG6UR6PTNevz3DWLF9K8MODMYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4NoxVT3JGLmT-8Vj5R4c-h-m9xK20nG3vQHyBKx3aNX3Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEUnE0exyYOr5UytWmEsmXp0MirH1VqvMT4KQMdb=aT9DobK4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEsg9X2v8tFQ0MkR_Qo=C3LWMK2vnXkh+q+zhFmp-eMoUSeD6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 19:18:10 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:49.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEsg9X2v8tFQ0MkR_Qo=C3LWMK2vnXkh+q+zhFmp-eMoUSeD6w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Posted-By: 137.50.185.62
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hi David,

David Rodrigues wrote:
> Hello folks!
> I just not understand why "function" should be abbreviated. It's about "how
> less character better"? I don't see it too much on PHP. I guess that is
> more simple keep what exists current "function", that all knows about (that
> should be better than the next example):
>
> $mapped = array_map(function($x) => $x + $y); // vs current:
> $mapped = array_map(function($x) use($y) { return $x + $y });

I feel the same way. It would be nice to have shorter syntax, but it 
sacrifices readability and familiarity here, and adds yet another new 
keyword.

It also feels inconsistent… isn't "fn" just short for "function"? Why is 
it exclusive to the => syntax?

Thanks.

-- 
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/