wt., 11 lut 2020, 20:08 użytkownik Dik Takken <d.h.j.tak...@freedom.nl>
napisał:
> On 11-02-2020 17:48, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Given the fact that $() would only accept functions and methods as
> argument, this idea could be taken one step further by writing:
>
> $(foo);
> $($obj->Fot);
> $(Zoq::Fot);
>
> Referring to a method like this is normally not possible because it is
> ambiguous. However, wrapped inside $(), which only accepts functions and
> methods, the ambiguity disappears.
>
> The $() syntax is nice and short. And something completely new. As new
> syntax can only be 'spent' once, more familiar alternatives should be
> explored as well. Thinking about the existing list() and array() syntax,
> another possibility could be:
>
> closure(foo);
> closure($obj->Fot);
> closure(Zoq::Fot);
>
It looks like a function but it's not a function cause what you have inside
parentheses looks like a const, property and class const.
IMO a statement like that for consistency it should be with no parentheses
like:
$foo = closure foo;
$foo = closure $obj->Fot;
$foo = closure Zoq::Fot;
Cheers,
--
Michał Brzuchalski
>
