On Jun 18, 2008, at 2:36 AM, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
1) I am not sure that the current semantics of the "lexical"
keyword is great in all cases. Is the reason why you don't allow by-
value binding so that we don't have to manage more than one lambda
instance per declaration?
by-reference binding is much closer to other languages symantics. I
guess, that was the main reason Christian chose it.
"by-value" may still exist, if people find, that they need it, but
only in addition, please.
lambda has to reflect changing state of context, to be truly useful
In Lua, the language in which I've seen the most of closures and
lambda, lexical scoping is handled this way:
someVariable1 = "asdf";
someVariable2 = "jkl;";
SomeFunction = function()
local someVariable2 = "1234";
print someVariable1.." "..someVariable2.."\n";
end
print gettype(SomeFunction).."\n";
SomeFunction();
someVariable1 = "qwer";
someVariable2 "0987";
SomeFunction();
The resulting output of this code fragment would be:
function
asdf 1234
qwer 1234
The Lua interpreter handles this by resolving variable references as
they're made; "someVariable1" is looked up in the closure's scope and
not found, so the interpreter steps out one scope and looks for it
there, repeat as necessary. Once found outside the closure's scope,
something similar to the proposed "lexical" keyword happens. Closures
and lexical variables can be nested this way, to the point where a
single variable in a sixth-level closure could still have been
originally found in the global scope.
I'm not sure this would work for PHP, I'm curious what others think.
Of course, that fragment does a very poor job of showing off the
extreme flexibility of Lua with regards to functions and scoping, but
hopefully it illustrates the concept.
-- Gwynne, Daughter of the Code
"This whole world is an asylum for the incurable."
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
