> The use of > instead of => could if possible indicate the method being
void
> and reduce even more:
I think that for void, it could just identify it and not return nothing
automatically.
function a(): int => b(); // equivalents to function a(): int { return b();
}
function x(): void => y(); // equivalents to function x(): void { y(); }
Atenciosamente,
David Rodrigues
Em seg., 26 de out. de 2020 às 11:23, Michał Marcin Brzuchalski <
michal.brzuchal...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Hi Larry,
>
> I'm wondering why we hadn't thought yet about reducing the need for $this
> in this syntax.
> Since arrow functions have an ability to capture variables defined in
> parent scope why not
> think of the same for class properties which will automatically reduce
> short methods verbosity.
>
> class X {
> public function __construct(private int $foo, private int $bar) {}
> public function getFoo(): int => $foo;
> public function getBar(): int => $bar;
> }
>
> And then going further why not removing = from arrow which indicated that
> there is no return value for void functions:
>
> class X {
> public function __construct(private int $foo, private int $bar) {}
> public function getFoo(): int => $foo;
> public function setFoo(int $value): void > $foo = $value;
> public function getBar(): int => $bar;
> public function setBar(int $value): void > $bar = $value;
> }
>
> The use of > instead of => could if possible indicate the method being void
> and reduce even more:
>
> class X {
> public function __construct(private int $foo, private int $bar) {}
> public function getFoo(): int => $foo;
> public function setFoo(int $value) > $foo = $value;
> public function getBar(): int => $bar;
> public function setBar(int $value) > $bar = $value;
> }
>
> Would it be possible?
>
> If not I think we should reanimate property accessors.
>
> Just dropping my 50 cents.
>
> Best regards,
> Michał Marcin Brzuchalski
>
> wt., 20 paź 2020 o 20:20 Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>
> napisał(a):
>
> > A while back, Nikita mentioned that it should now be easy to offer an
> > abbreviated syntax for functions that are just a single expression. I
> > decided to take a crack at it and it turns out he was right. I thus
> offer
> > this RFC:
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-functions
> >
> > Hopefully I made a decent enough case for it. It's entirely a
> convenience
> > factor, but I think for many OOP cases (getter methods and factored out
> > operations) and functional cases (where functions should generally be a
> > single expression conceptually) it does make the code nicer, more
> compact,
> > and more readable.
> >
> > *dons flame retardant suit*
> >
> > --
> > Larry Garfield
> > la...@garfieldtech.com
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
> >
>
