Sara Golemon wrote:
> looks a bit... ugly? weird? surprising?
I had the same initial reaction, and was going to tell David what I
thought of the suggestion. But after a couple of days, I was unable to
actually articulate what I didn't like it, so think I was just having
a gut reaction to something I hadn't seen before, and so wasn't used
to seeing.
Sara Golemon wrote:
> That's a lot of... stuff
Yeah, but it's a really rare use-case for a closure to need to be able
to reference itself, so I think it's probably fine to have some
verbosity around "this closure is doing something quite unusual".
I personally think any of:
function (... $args) as $lambda: returnType use ($captures...) {}
function (... $args): returnType as $lambda use ($captures...) {}
function (... $args): returnType use ($captures...) as $lambda {}
would be fine and various 'my aesthetic choice is objectively the
best' arguments, could be made for any of them.
David Rodrigues wrote:
> I ended up preferring this last option.
I prefer the others as I think they are more deliberate syntax (i.e.
don't look like a typo), avoid confusion around why can't normal
functions be declared with leading $'s, and almost certainly would be
easier to search for what they are. e.g. "php closure as variable"
cheers
Dan
Ack
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
