On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:04 AM Côme Chilliet < come.chill...@fusiondirectory.org> wrote:
> Le Thu, 17 Jun 2021 08:30:43 -0500, > "Larry Garfield" <la...@garfieldtech.com> a écrit : > > > > The ? character was chosen for the placeholder largely because it was > > > > unambiguous and easy to implement. Prior, similar RFCs (such as the > > > > original Pipe Operator proposal from several years ago) used the $$ > > > > (lovingly called T_BLING) sigil instead. So far no compelling > argument > > > > has been provided for changing the character, so the RFC is sticking > > > > with ?. > > > > > > The main argument for $$ is to be able to have partial methods with > $$->, > > > this should be stated in this paragraph. > > > > That's not something that was ever brought up in the discussion. > > Finally found where I read that, it’s in an other RFC: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/first_class_callable_syntax#partial_function_application > For the record, Larry replied on this subject: https://externals.io/message/114770#114785 (second part). Note that for `$$->foo(/*whatever*/)` the signature couldn't be extracted (because the class of $$ is unknown). Regards, -- Guilliam Xavier
