Richard Lynch wrote:
On Mon, March 19, 2007 3:35 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 15:20 -0500, Richard Lynch wrote:
On Sun, March 18, 2007 6:41 pm, Wez Furlong wrote:
We've been daydreaming about the ability to do something like this
in
PHP:
$data = array("zoo", "orange", "car", "lemon", "apple");
usort($data, function($a, $b) { return strcmp($a, $b); });
var_dump($data); # data is sorted alphabetically
I'd LOVE it if there was SOME difference between this and a normal
'function' definition...
I guess we're kind of stuck with 'create_function' being the mess
that
it is.
But perhaps something like 'temp_function' or 'local_function' or
'lexical_closure' or something similar. Even 'horse' [*] would be
fine by me.
I think it muddies things too much to have it just be 'function'
with
no name after it.
+1
A function with a name is no longer anonymous ;)
I am not suggesting that there be a name.
I am suggesting that the reserved keyword for an anonymous function
should not be 'function', the same as a normal function.
I don't have anything against 'function', I think JS uses the same
syntax - function without a name. If you change it to something
different, e.g 'callback', then you loose the information that it is
actually a function
$error_func = callback($msg) {
file_put_contents('php://stderr',"Error: $msg\n");
}
vs.
$error_func = function($msg) {
file_put_contents('php://stderr',"Error: $msg\n");
}
The second one looks better for me.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
