On 4 Oct 2015 21:50, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > I don't like that it's a function. Closure is a class, classes can have
> > static and instance methods, and closure() looks like something that
> > should be a method on Closure. In fact, it creates a closure, which a
> > constructor would usually do. If we want to make it avoid duplication,
> > okay, then it could be a static method. But I'm unconvinced it should be
> > a function. Constructors go in their classes, we don't leave them lying
> > around as global functions. That's messy and inconsistent.
>
> Agree. Closure::fromCallable sounds like a good option.
> That being said, I'm not sure how much need is for this - i.e. you can
> always make a closure by just doing function() { return $this->blah(); }
> if you need it. But the bigger question would be why you need more
> specific type (Closure) instead of more generic (callable) and aren't
> you overspecifying in that case?
>
> And if we're into performance optimization - which should almost never
> be done on language construct level, because performance considerations
> vary and language constructs are forever - then it would be much better
> to look into tail call optimizations. That would solve the barrier
> between [$this, "foo"] and function() { return $this->foo(); } in many
> practical cases.
>I think the origin of this intention is, that calling a callable just by `$callable()` does not work consistently -- see the othe RFC by Dan -- and that call_user_func() suffers from a (mythical?) performance issue.
