On 3 August 2014 23:50, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote:
> Good evening,
>
> I am proposing two new RFCs. As they are both inter-related and
> complementary, with the second having the first as a prerequisite, I’m
> making just a single email to cover both:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closure_apply
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/function_referencing
>
> Both have written, tested and working patches aimed for master.
>
> Thoughts appreciated, thanks.
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
Hey Andrea,
Is the advantage of `Closure#call()` only performance? Because I don't see
other advantages otherwise, and I don't think the performance impact is
relevant.
As for the function referencing RFC, I like it, but it is an annoying
syntax that seems to have been built just to accomodate the parser, and
that can be worked around in userland with overhead and more typing:
$functionReference = function ($param) { return functionName($param); };
A syntax that I'd like, and which is IMO BC compatible would be`::function`:
array_map(count::function, [[1, 2], [3, 4]]);
This is also very similar and similarly readable to what we have right now
with PHP 5.5 through the `::class` meta-constant.
There's also no way to use `function` as a constant anywhere, so it should
be safe to use that right now.
Thoughts?
