On 12/02/2020 03:58, Mike Schinkel wrote:
Returning a_closure_ instead of a string would be providing a feature
we_already_ have instead of one we do_not_ have.
Not really, because you still need a way to get the fully-qualified name
of the function. This is not valid:
namespace MyVendor\Something\Foo;
function bar() {}
\Closure::fromCallable('bar'); # Error: tries to resolve function '\bar'
So if we had ::function which returned the name, and ::callable that
returned a closure, the following would be equivalent:
namespace MyVendor\Something\Foo;
function bar() {}
\Closure::fromCallable('MyVendor\Something\Foo\bar');
\Closure::fromCallable(bar::function);
bar::callable;
One combination would be ::function returning a string, and $()
accepting one, which would give:
$(bar::function)
In practice, that would almost certainly be optimised into one
instruction, so the main advantage would be consistency, unless there
are use cases where a string rather than "any callable" is actually
required.
Or today just use fn() => myfunc().
That's not quite the same either: at the very least, you need to define
it as fn(...$args) => myfunc(...$args) to pass through the parameters.
But Closure::callable is able to copy the signature of the original
function, including type information [1], so our hypothetical ::callable
could do the same.
[1] https://3v4l.org/XBOmJ
Regards,
--
Rowan Tommins (né Collins)
[IMSoP]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
