On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:22 PM Luis Henrique <l...@softsatsistemas.com.br> wrote:
> On 20/05/2021 12:55, Guilliam Xavier wrote: > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:16 PM Ondřej Mirtes <ond...@mirtes.cz> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself “I > know > >>> this, this is just a method call… oh wait, it’s actually a callable”. > It > >>> really makes my head hurt. > >>> > >> > >> Yes, I can see how that could be confusing. The current syntax is > chosen to > >> be a subset of the partial function application proposal. However, I > would > >> also be happy with some other syntax that makes it clearer that this is > >> acquiring a callable and not performing a call. > >> > > > > Hi, several other syntaxes have been proposed to consideration in the PFA > > thread, and I wouldn't want to start new bikeshedding here; is there a > > place that would be more appropriate to gather the possibilities (like a > > kind of updatable list)? > > > > Thanks, > > > > I am much more into advanced features of PFA, but is this case why not > just use the & operator for "function reference" like C/C++? It is well > known and solves the ambiguity with method/function call. > > $fn = &$this->myFunc; > > $fn = &myFunc; > > $fn = &Foo::myFunc; > Unfortunately, this syntax is trivially ambiguous. "$fn = &$this->myFunc" is currently already interpreted as a reference assignment of the property $this->myFunc. I have updated https://wiki.php.net/rfc/first_class_callable_syntax#syntax_choice to discuss some of the obvious suggestions and why they don't work. Regards, Nikita
