Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

2017-06-09 Thread Levi Morrison
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Rowan Collins wrote: > On 9 June 2017 21:00:48 BST, Niklas Keller wrote: >>2017-06-09 15:44 GMT+02:00 Sara Golemon : >> >>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Björn Larsson >> >>> wrote: >>> > If I take the liberty in using the example above on our option >>list: >>>

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

2017-06-09 Thread Rowan Collins
On 9 June 2017 21:00:48 BST, Niklas Keller wrote: >2017-06-09 15:44 GMT+02:00 Sara Golemon : > >> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Björn Larsson > >> wrote: >> > If I take the liberty in using the example above on our option >list: >> > 1. $someDict->map(fn($v) => $v * 2)->filter(fn($v) => $v % 3);

[PHP-DEV] BAD Benchmark Results for PHP Master 2017-06-08

2017-06-09 Thread lp_benchmark_robot
Results for project PHP master, build date 2017-06-08 19:24:09-07:00 commit: f2bf00b previous commit:eb6614e revision date: 2017-06-08 15:01:15-04:00 environment:Haswell-EP cpu:Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz 2x18 cores, stepping 2, LLC 45 MB

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

2017-06-09 Thread Niklas Keller
2017-06-09 15:44 GMT+02:00 Sara Golemon : > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Björn Larsson > wrote: > > If I take the liberty in using the example above on our option list: > > 1. $someDict->map(fn($v) => $v * 2)->filter(fn($v) => $v % 3); > > 2. $someDict->map(function($v) => $v * 2)->filter(func

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

2017-06-09 Thread Sara Golemon
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Björn Larsson wrote: > If I take the liberty in using the example above on our option list: > 1. $someDict->map(fn($v) => $v * 2)->filter(fn($v) => $v % 3); > 2. $someDict->map(function($v) => $v * 2)->filter(function($v) => $v % 3); > 3. $someDict->map($v ==> $v *

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

2017-06-09 Thread Björn Larsson
Den 2017-06-09 kl. 02:13, skrev Sara Golemon: On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Björn Larsson wrote: You have a good point here! I think one then should evaluate both the implementation, which apparently is not so great and how the feature itself has been received. I mean is it heavily used and