On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Levi Morrison wrote on 01/10/2015 18:40:
>>>
>>> Or we can figure out some other such symbol. Worse casing no white space,
>>> brain storming:
>>
>> Please, I already asked people to stop making suggestions for shorter
>> syntax for `use()`.
>
>
> I tried to move the discussion to whether or not auto-capturing variables is
> a good idea, regardless of syntax, but the responses continue to be of the
> form "but that particular example syntax looks a bit ugly".
>
> So I agree, let's not discuss the details of ANY syntax, until we've come to
> some conclusion on whether or not auto-capture is a negotiable feature.
It's absolutely negotiable. I don't need to defend this anymore – look
at the number of yes votes Bob's proposal garnered despite some very
glaring concerns about other aspects of the RFC.
>
>> Again, 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?
>
>
> I thought I'd answered this already - because some people dislike the
> *verbosity* of "use" (and of the syntax in general) but are happy with the
> *functionality*. You are assuming that "I think the current syntax is
> verbose" is synonymous with "I think having to list captured variables is
> annoying", but there are people who do not take that position.
You are capped to saving about 5-7 characters no matter what you do
with this functionality. This is nothing compared to what is proposed
if you save just one single-letter variable import with fairly
customary spacing:
$versionA = function($x) => $x + $y;
$versionB = function($x) use($y) {
return $x + $y;
};
That's a 27 character difference (well, 24 if you use tab instead of
spaces). Twenty-seven. Please think about that before you respond
again.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
