> On Feb 13, 2020, at 5:26 PM, Dik Takken <d.h.j.tak...@freedom.nl> wrote:
>
> On 13-02-2020 19:19, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That is somewhat confusing in my opinion, the two class constants are
> too similar. I would rather prefer:
>
> foo::function — Returns name of function
> foo::closure — Returns closure for function
>
> Regards,
> Dik Takken
I actually prefer foo::closure over foo::fn though either would be fine with
me, especially if it means getting the feature vs. not getting the feature.
The reason I proposed ::fn was because I trying to suggest something that I
though Larry Garfield would appreciate given his recent comment[1] in response
to you where he said:
"Analysis: I stand by my earlier statement that ::function is just too damned
long for this funtionality. Not when already reserved shorter options exist.
::fn"
-Mike
[1] https://externals.io/message/108459#108542
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
