On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 10:36 AM Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 2:48 PM Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi internals, >> >> I'd like to present an RFC for a first-class callable syntax, which is >> intended as a simpler alternative to the partial function application (PFA) >> proposal: >> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/first_class_callable_syntax >> >> See the Rationale section for details on how this relates to PFA. Over >> the past week, we've had a lot of discussions on how exactly PFA is >> supposed to work (most of them OTR), and while we seem to have a tentative >> consensus on the correct model to use (which does not match the current >> RFC), it's clear that this feature has turned out more complicated than >> originally anticipated. Joe (who provided the implementation for the PFA >> RFC) is also concerned about the implementation complexity that the final >> model would require. >> >> At least I personally was mainly interested in PFA because it provides a >> first-class callable syntax as a side-effect. This RFC goes back to >> providing *just* that. The syntax is forward-compatible with a future PFA >> proposal though. >> >> Regards, >> Nikita >> > > I've updated the RFC to forbid combination with the nullsafe operator, as > well as explicitly mention strict types behavior, as these came up in the > PFA discussion. > > I plan to put up this RFC for voting in the event that the PFA proposal > does not get accepted. > As syntax has been the primary point of contention for this RFC, I've considered adding a secondary vote for an alternative syntax, with the prime contender being strlen::fn / $foo->bar::fn / Foo::bar::fn. I have ultimately decided against this, because the ::fn syntax is not just a minor syntax variation: It will result in materially different semantics. While the end goal is the same, ::fn would approach it from a technically quite different direction, by not piggy-backing on call syntax. If this doesn't get accepted ("I like the idea but hate the syntax" is a sensible reason to vote against), then I'd create a separate proposal for a different syntax choice. Regards, Nikita
