Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99578 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 5023 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2017 17:52:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Jun 2017 17:52:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rowan.collins@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rowan.collins@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.128.175 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rowan.collins@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.128.175 mail-wr0-f175.google.com Received: from [209.85.128.175] ([209.85.128.175:33999] helo=mail-wr0-f175.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 93/25-13828-0D069495 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:52:17 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 77so100900432wrb.1 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:52:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:from:message-id; bh=t1PImOY6ybtB/PlYbSaRmecRK9mPjv/V25kaQEc0sY8=; b=Qd4OP4ZKSjshzkM+/GaeqZ/G+XjIU1xe7ugl3AqW6fhx/QmQ4wDsSzvJLDbEVuDOxp m2dKCHYsXoN9yantN+SVnwxUTMa88UMip+4hQeLpX9YgyhiUTHqXpnxgz+BbpEt8unLQ PEJIQAFJtjTEaoeMOAQVQuPoP5P4+eq1hGKomSY0iggBtCkWJ16rvHUUrL+iFP8JNGRP uZvV2+AC4fcIV5xIA5ru9lnPhDeZfnVHTCoN+Re/vcFb5ti0X0Gvn+H90mWn48hrgfqD lyFWzngYKjE1NDuuMgEmokFu/grDQTy73B7XS82ozeqkGrHS5A+m2sx9UttVsAcfKtb6 omnw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:user-agent:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:from:message-id; bh=t1PImOY6ybtB/PlYbSaRmecRK9mPjv/V25kaQEc0sY8=; b=HR6j/DXRVVH6Br+V9eMoa9y+NAISSX2zfPhgPlMqiwoGd4ZSHz/CRJIgaeHnomHXQg 6R8nJmtXOv+4SBsfcY4zvEFUJAA5sW8K4Pe2PxAFUHkFh31LVgqq2nvWSSQqAiE0leDD DjBkOKwqqGC8SogNx96l0XV732BUBarVdgAEdgPQ9MHaEnwDK0IojeIHjl7KzPV7puZN GUytVcWodVM5s5TlCq1le1h0ffvU+L7+Hr4FBu13G0z9GYXdA9Jko74knhhufXmKLPSB su6E/2U1orLXPuSc3hmzNosGIEDdbLbdWdFA/x4KdZtV1LZSc0632OghN8AuqXHzuZrh yP0w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOy1AwBsF3ZuGAFUYN0FkdgNRz1Ji3RuGuqoeqodhvaAPiKS2pQB z3WYc3F7SOg7oQoTJZk= X-Received: by 10.28.234.70 with SMTP id i67mr3695458wmh.91.1497981133244; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.145.50.248] (92.40.249.118.threembb.co.uk. [92.40.249.118]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y42sm13054340wrc.51.2017.06.20.10.52.11 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:52:07 +0100 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <5fe1eefe-1c4f-4c31-c975-ab6c768c977c@telia.com> <3C763609-54FC-480B-AE95-94A1873226E0@me.com> <9A3447BF-F982-4C5A-B55B-466036AF2E53@me.com> <2d89daaa-056f-3dcb-a5f2-b790affe203a@garfieldtech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: internals@lists.php.net Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins) On 19 June 2017 21:22:53 BST, Rasmus Schultz wrote: >So what's on the table is a syntax-improved but feature-crippled >variant of >closures, not an all-round replacement? I haven't the time right now to dig out my summary from the mail archives,= but this is one of the fundamental disagreements / misunderstandings that = made discussion difficult the first time: different people want very differ= ent things from this feature, leading to conflicting views on whether certa= in things are advantages or disadvantages=2E For me (and I am not alone), this feature is NOT a new syntax for closures= =2E It is a new TYPE of closure, with new semantics - automatically capturi= ng variables - for a specific use case=2E=20 Personally, I am strongly opposed to any multi-line version of it, because= I don't want the fundamental scoping rules of the language changed except = for the specific case of simple lambda expressions=2E If what you are looking for is a replacement syntax for existing closures,= you will have a completely different set of priorities=2E That doesn't mak= e either of us wrong, but it does mean we're going to find it very hard to = agree on a syntax and feature set=2E Regards, --=20 Rowan Collins [IMSoP]