Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99386
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain koalephant.com designates 206.123.115.54 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
In-Reply-To: <559b73f7-c40f-e593-f0e1-51b56210d7cb@telia.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:38:54 +0700
Cc: Ryan Pallas <derokorian@gmail.com>,
 Fleshgrinder <php@fleshgrinder.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <2053A608-6B66-42FB-A6D7-7CC64E94DA6A@koalephant.com>
References: <CAFMT4Npoo_ZrRk-kk4C6KHYEtV93pU7Wmh0FhaPi6Z-9qkObaQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM3PR18MB07641E547AD2FA1DFA5BEF65DEF60@DM3PR18MB0764.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> <6357d97c-3f2e-4cf8-cb1f-cb7f7ccccf7c@telia.com> <CADqTB_hNob7ZiGX66gJEpCymrZJqqsZ1uAGnYg6v6sbrwx1-KQ@mail.gmail.com> <7eaef49b-bf60-9aa1-e812-8430164e3178@garfieldtech.com> <f5992058-aecd-8bc4-08f8-2bfe722cd41e@fleshgrinder.com> <3F920987-38CB-42DD-888D-824430C36F14@gmail.com> <2f9e73c9-444a-11d0-459a-e261ea8a7080@telia.com> <CADqTB_hWrhBBQetfp=-LFR=OYALHwhs=mYd3vPQOYGGng26UsA@mail.gmail.com> <4077c099-2247-c3c1-7dee-02a6b25f8586@fleshgrinder.com> <CAObuZdtHXp=icU_aB8dWyjbzW-yZ0sSTW6ObmEsxTuvR679-Fw@mail.gmail.com> <CAObuZdvck_w5iEeH5Sz23pDS1T727gtN7pn8XCiPWBvqVWR5Ag@mail.gmail.com> <ac91b47f-5de9-ac03-da7c-457a3fc592f9@fleshgrinder.com> <CAObuZdvYX8Yr4KQnzJNeF8CSJVwpxuDevV+6=w_J5J9gx5R8HQ@mail.gmail.com> <559b73f7-c40f-e593-f0e1-51b56210d7cb@telia.com>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Larsson?= <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions
From: php-lists@koalephant.com (Stephen Reay)

>=20
> On 6 Jun 2017, at 03:18, Bj=C3=B6rn Larsson =
<bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com> wrote:
>=20
> Den 2017-06-05 kl. 21:23, skrev Ryan Pallas:
>=20
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Fleshgrinder <php@fleshgrinder.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>> On 6/5/2017 9:03 PM, Ryan Pallas wrote:
>>>> However, ($obj) -> $var is valid variable property syntax.
>>>>=20
>>> Gosh, we really have support for everything. :D That one is even =
very
>>> important for stuff like `(new A)->f()`.
>>>=20
>>> How about ~> which I at least cannot think of any place it is used =
at
>>> all. ~ in binary negation and the only place we use it (I checked =
the
>>> language parser this time to make sure).
>>>=20
>>> I really dislike the =3D=3D> idea. One of the main reasons here is =
to write
>>> less and it looks too much like =3D> or even >=3D which I really =
don't like.
>>>=20
>>>     ($a, $b) =3D=3D> $a >=3D $b
>>>=20
>>>     ($a, $b) ~> $a >=3D $b
>>>=20
>>>=20
>> I can get behind using the tilde. Keeps it concise, but it's visually
>> different than existing syntax, making it easier to recognize (IMO).
>>=20
> I think ~>was a proposal in the short closure RFC. Personally I liked =
it,
> but could also live with =3D=3D>. I recall there was a discussion =
about how
> easy it was to use tilde on different keyboards / languages. So at =
that
> point the discussion was about either ~> or =3D=3D> for syntax.
>=20
> But back to Levi's list it looks like, at least to me that option 2 & =
4 are
> off the table. Leaving option 3 & 1, maybe also option 5.
>=20
> Do you think this is a reasonable assumption?
>=20
> Also some other proposals has arisen, like using lamda instead of fn =
as
> a keyword and lastly the ~> one.
>=20
> r//Bj=C3=B6rn
>=20
> --=20
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

As someone who sees limited appeal in short closures (Ok, they may make =
for slightly simpler constructs that are slightly too complex for a =
regular =E2=80=9Ccollect=E2=80=9D type collection method), I see a *lot* =
of people spending a *lot* of time to save typing 8 characters =
(function).

If this feature truly is about making it easier to read, then that =
should be your goal: make it easy to mentally parse, basically =
instantly. Given that even proponents of the approach are admitting the =
syntax can get quite hard to understand quickly, perhaps it=E2=80=99s =
time to accept that =E2=80=9Cmore characters=E2=80=9D !=3D=3D =E2=80=9Char=
der to read & understand=E2=80=9D and importantly, =E2=80=9Cless =
characters=E2=80=9D !=3D=3D =E2=80=9Ceasier to read & understand=E2=80=9D.=


How long does it take someone to type function? A second, maybe two? How =
many times are other people going to read that, once it=E2=80=99s been =
written?


Or maybe I=E2=80=99ve got it all wrong, and the goal is literally to =
save 8 keystrokes. If that=E2=80=99s the case, please update the RFC =
accordingly, to make it clear what the motivations are=20



Cheers

Stephen=