Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99570
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain fischer.name from 84.116.36.14 cause and error)
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAFMT4Npoo_ZrRk-kk4C6KHYEtV93pU7Wmh0FhaPi6Z-9qkObaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVpQtLXhKnUn2EE4s7rZn11r5Kpj2zOSOKRCWFaxaeOrjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1105f90-91e9-e61a-b96b-5078c337ab5c@telia.com>
 <b47c4379-109c-c289-1077-b42ea40fe19f@telia.com>
 <ca6f11d0-5da3-757c-7acd-4acd79a876f1@fleshgrinder.com>
 <5fe1eefe-1c4f-4c31-c975-ab6c768c977c@telia.com>
 <E56D1F4A-6DC7-47DA-BAD6-1722E017B048@me.com>
 <CADqTB_jDmFZZc3ah=J8F99P77qnuWVgXS5UwXgrbartCp5B+UQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3C763609-54FC-480B-AE95-94A1873226E0@me.com>
 <CADqTB_hU+38TOHdaukhGBS-2NPq-PNSci1h078TPOGbE7WcmWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A3447BF-F982-4C5A-B55B-466036AF2E53@me.com>
 <CAFMT4NrdCRJxGyeGqLbAoaV896FN6VpDjY-68trXoaRgZe4VyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADqTB_hT-Nd5wX129GgeQxL8RNJ85maSPOPHUt-2NK-ef3yF-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADqTB_hB1ifmXu4VO6Z4A3gN=2AF_PU4C8yCYXz8QN6zZ_k=6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <2d89daaa-056f-3dcb-a5f2-b790affe203a@garfieldtech.com>
 <CADqTB_gN+bdU9HBbyjpJJCK7FxO_rQi9hmEuhANGEkc52mpHtw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <64e7de96-6a46-1c2c-5492-fab5a0f22b32@fischer.name>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:53:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADqTB_gN+bdU9HBbyjpJJCK7FxO_rQi9hmEuhANGEkc52mpHtw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam_score: -2.9
X-Spam_score_int: -28
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "scanner01.home", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  Hello Rasmus, On 19.06.17 22:22, Rasmus Schultz wrote: > If
    I have to factor back and forth between new and old syntax every time a >
    closure changes from one to multiple or back to one statement, then, > frankly,
    what's the point? > > I think I would just keep using the old syntax, then
    - for consistency, and > to save myself the frustration of factoring back
    and forth. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (-2.9 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED            Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
                             [score: 0.0000]
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions
From: markus@fischer.name (Markus Fischer)

Hello Rasmus,

On 19.06.17 22:22, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> If I have to factor back and forth between new and old syntax every time a
> closure changes from one to multiple or back to one statement, then,
> frankly, what's the point?
>
> I think I would just keep using the old syntax, then - for consistency, and
> to save myself the frustration of factoring back and forth.

I'm writing closures every day and it's so rare to have this changes 
from single/multiple I don't even remember. I think in practice this is 
a non-issue except for very rare special cases and, don't forget: it's 
optional, you don't have to.

> In my opinion, if this is worth doing, it's worth doing it right.

No counter-argument here :)

I just think your example is an exaggeration to what happens in practice.

- Markus