On 31/01/17 05:53, Stephen Reay wrote:
> 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.Yes, I also think that keeping the function keyword would be better. > > 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. Wouldn't there be just too many existing closures, which do not use `use` but (maybe) expect a clean scope? -- Regards, Mike
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
