> On Feb 13, 2020, at 1:48 PM, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
>> But since I seem to be in the minority of caring about the name, let me
>> propose the following which was influenced by Larry Garfield's most
>> recent post. Since it seems that people want the convenience of a
>> short notation to get a closure, how about this:
>>
>> function foo{}
>>
>> foo::function — Returns name of function
>> foo::fn — Returns closure for function
>>
>> Since using `fn` creates anonymous function closures it kinda makes
>> sense that `::fn` would return a closure.
>>
>> -Mike
>
> thinking-face-emoji.gif. I could be convinced of that. It seems like "both"
> is a possible solution, but my concern would be someone using one of them in
> a case where either works, inadvertently, when the callee is expecting just
> one. Eg, getting into the habit of using foo::fn, and then using it on a
> builder routine that chokes "later" when it tries to serialize something.
True.
But it would be a really high bar to say we can only add new features if we can
completely protect the developer from themselves. At some point we have to
assume programmers are adults, or at least can take responsibility for learning
how the language works.
-Mike
P.S. OTOH, if the routine that requires ::function and not ::fn were to type
hint the parameter, it would choke with an applicable error message.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
