On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Bishop Bettini <bis...@php.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 26/09/2015 17:17, Levi Morrison wrote:
>>>
>>> What concerns do you have about `fn($x) => $x * 2` or `function($x) =>
>>> $x * 2`? I will be writing a proper RFC later but I wanted to get
>>> discussion going now.
>>
>>
>> If a keyword is required next to the parameters, having the => as a
>> separate token looks a bit weird. It no longer matches other languages, so
>> how about thinking a bit further outside the box?
>>
>> One of the random thoughts that popped into my head during the previous
>> discussion was to base the syntax on the C for-loop, which would also give a
>> place for bound variables without the "use" keyword. e.g. your example could
>> become fn($x;; $x * 2)
>>
>> I picked "lambda" as the keyword before, and gave these examples:
>>
>> # lambda(params; bound vars; expression)
>> $double = lambda($a;; 2*$a)
>> $x=3; $triple = lambda($a; $x; $x * $a)
>>
>> function sumEventScores($events, $scores) {
>> $types = array_map(lambda($event;; $event['type']), $events);
>> return array_reduce($types, lambda($sum, $type; $scores; $sum +
>> $scores[$type]));
>> }
>>
>>
>> Adding in the type information, we'd get this:
>>
>> lambda(int $sum, string $type; $scores; $sum + $scores[$type])
>> # or with fn() if you prefer:
>> fn(int $sum, string $type; $scores; $sum + $scores[$type])
>>
>>
>> If return typehints are also required, I'm not sure where they'd best be
>> placed. If they're outside the parens, they end up after the expression,
>> which might look odd:
>> fn(int $sum, string $type; $scores; $sum + $scores[$type]): int
>>
>> A few other possibilities:
>> fn(int $sum, string $type; $scores; $sum + $scores[$type]; int)
>> fn(int $sum, string $type: int; $scores; $sum + $scores[$type])
>> fn:int(int $sum, string $type; $scores; $sum + $scores[$type])
>>
>>
>> All of this assumes that the shorthand is only available for simple
>> expressions, not function bodies, but it seems a bit rendundant to allow
>> both of these:
>> function($x) { foo(); bar(); baz(); }
>> fn($x) => { foo(); bar(); baz(); }
>>
>> And only marginally more useful if variables are auto-captured, with all
>> the downsides of that which have already been raised:
>> function($x) use ($y) { foo($x); bar($x, $y); }
>> fn($x) => { foo($x); bar($x, $y); }
>
>
> I'm leaning toward a compromise between Levi's suggested syntax (which is
> unambiguous and short, but auto-closes over parent's scope) and Rowan's
> for-loop style (which imports variables but the syntax feels cramped to me).
> Example:
>
> $a = 1;
> $b = fn($x; $a) => $x + $a; // note the semi-colon here, $a is explicitly
> imported
> $c = $b(1); // 2
I'm going to ask everyone to stop saying that auto-closing is bad
unless they also provide a demonstration of why it was bad.
I'm also going to ask everyone to stop suggesting new syntax for
importing variables. If use() is a pain then auto-importing the used
variables is a good solution. If it's not a pain why are you
suggesting new syntax?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
