On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 10:50 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:33:08 +0200, Alexander Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Friday 20 June 2008, Larry Garfield wrote:
> >> > function ($x, $y) use ($a, $b, &$c) {};
> >>
> >> I am not sure if "use" is the clearest word to use there (wouldn't
> > lexical
> >> there make more sense?)
> >
> > I agree. "use" for both namespaces and closures may not be a good idea.
> > Otherwise +1 to this syntax for its low WTF-factor.
> > Look like parameters. Behave like parameters.
> >
> > Also, allowing this for regular function definitions might be a nice
> > long-term
> > replacement for global.
>
> Totally silly idea:
>
> function foo($a, $b, &$c) global ($d, &$e) {
> // ...
> }
>
> $myfunc = lambda($a, $b, &$c) lexical ($d, &$e) {
> // ...
> }
>
> That puts all the information in the declaration line with parallel syntax
> and semantics, and would even allow both by-val and by-ref usage for both
> lexical and global values. The following would then be exactly equivalent
> functionality-wise:
>
> function foo() global (&$a) {
> // ...
> }
>
> function foo() {
> global $a;
> // ...
> }
>
> Is that too crazy an idea?
I like that, and also like the parenthesis on both parameter listings
for greater readability. In a related question, would the following be a
natural extension?
$myfun = lambda($a, $b, &$c) lexical ($d, &$e) global ($f, &$g){
// ...
}
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
