Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> I wish this would return a Closure instead, making $foo::function the
> equivalent of Closure::fromCallable($foo).
I didn't include the following in that RFC, because I thought it would
be too controversial, but I think it's worth considering a new syntax
for this.
Given the code:
function foo();
class Zoq {
public function Fot() {}
public static function Pik() {}
}
$obj = new Zoq();
Then these:
$(foo);
$($obj, Fot);
$(Zoq, Fot);
Would be equivalent to:
Closure::fromCallable('foo');
Closure::fromCallable([$obj, 'Fot']);
Closure::fromCallable('Zoq::Fot'); or Closure::fromCallable(['Zoq', 'Fot']);
Or similar.
The justification for having a dedicated syntax is that I think
readability is quite important in code, and it's reasonably common for
me to have quite long lists of 'callables'.
[Bar::class, foo1::function],
[Bar::class, foo2::function],
[Bar::class, foo3::function],
[Bar::class, foo4::function]
vs
$(Bar, foo1),
$(Bar, foo2),
$(Bar, foo3),
$(Bar, foo4)
The latter is far easier to read for me.
Nikita Popov wrote:
> This would circumvent all the issues outlined in
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/consistent_callables.
Probably there would still be some issues with some of the weird stuff
happening internally in SPL related code where the deep horrors
rest...but we can leave them alone...and they might not wake.
cheers
Dan
Ack
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
