I also love this idea! This and short arrow functions and I’m golden (in terms of closures at least) :)
Regards On 9 Sep 2017, 03:31 +0200, Tom Worster <f...@thefsb.org>, wrote: > On 8 Sep 2017, at 17:41, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > > Hi everyone! > > > > Here's an RFC for a small, simple, self-contained feature with no > > backwards-compatibility breaks and which in fact doesn't even touch > > the language's syntax (it's 50%+1 eligible!) but which could make PHP > > a bit more expressive and consistent, especially with potential later > > features. It even has a test designed to impose minimal maintenance > > burden while testing a fairly large possibility space! > > > > Anyway, the RFC in question is this: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/operator_functions > > > > Please tell me what you think and suggest any potential improvements > > or anything you think might have been an omission. > > Yes! > > I have wanted this for many years. In the first programming language in > which I achieved real proficiency, this was vernacular. It would make me > happy to return to it in the language I now use most. An anonymous > function that turns an operator into three lines looks dumb and makes me > sad. > > Tom > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >
