Am 31.01.2017 um 05:53 schrieb Stephen Reay:
Hi Andrea, All,
On 31 Jan 2017, at 08:12, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote:
Is it necessary to introduce a new keyword, fn?
I think you'd get a similar benefit from:
function($x) => $arr[$x]
Likewise, is it necessary to restrict auto-capture to the => syntax? Couldn't
we allow the following?
function ($x) {
return $arr[$x];
}
I agree that the `fn` keyword isn’t really necessary. I’ve never quite
understood how arrow functions with implied returns etc are supposed to make
for *more* readable code, but if they’re going to be part of the language
please at least keep some consistency with regular closures.
In the case that regular closures got auto-capture, would a `use($foo, $bar,
$baz)` segment on a closure still be honoured (i.e. disable auto-capture), and
would it have any impact (positive or negative) on performance/memory usage?
After several years of JS closure ‘fun’ I kind of like that with PHP you only
inherit the variables you explicitly `use()` in closures.
I like the general idea, too. But with similar feelings for:
- Introducing a second keyword for closures is confusing - and mor
confusing if they are basically the same words
- Also I like the "use" keyword you have to define your variables
-> Would it be helpful to allow "function () use (*) {}" to inline
all available variables?
- Or based on Rowans idea to stretching the brackets but using the
function keyword:
function($x => $arr[$x])
Thanks
Marc
Cheers
Stephen
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
