On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, at 9:45 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, at 3:54 AM, Michał Marcin Brzuchalski wrote:
>
>>> As a thought experiment, if we had that syntax and functions that were
>>> designed to be used with them, it would look like so:
>>>
>>> function amap(callable $c, iter
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, at 6:05 PM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
> On 16/03/2023 22:14, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> Wouldn't the functionality described boil down to essentially just
>> materializing into a few extra lines in the constructor? At least to my
>> ignorant non-engine brain it seems straightforwa
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, at 3:54 AM, Michał Marcin Brzuchalski wrote:
>> As a thought experiment, if we had that syntax and functions that were
>> designed to be used with them, it would look like so:
>>
>> function amap(callable $c, iterable $it) { ... }
>> function implode(string $sep, iterable $it
Hi
On 3/17/23 14:32, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
Yes, your example makes more sense. In my old example the value of the
static variable was already assigned so didn't prove the point it was
trying to make. I adjusted the example in the RFC.
Okay, I believe that resolves all the remarks I ha(ve|d).
Be
Hi Tim
> Isn't the destructor+exception example misleading? In that case the
> initial value of '$x' is constant, thus it should always be known to
> reflection, no?
>
> Should the example look like this:
>
> > function foo($y) {
> > $x = new Foo();
> > static $x = $y;
> > }
> >
> > try {
Hi
Thank you, I've had another read through the RFC.
On 3/16/23 12:51, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
Let me know if anything is still unclear.
Isn't the destructor+exception example misleading? In that case the
initial value of '$x' is constant, thus it should always be known to
reflection, no?
Sh
On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 at 09:52, Robert Landers
wrote:
>
> I think this is already supported-ish. For example, here's a partial
> application in user space that seems to follow all the rules. Or at
> least the rules that are followed make sense.
>
> function partial(Closure $callable, ...$args): Clo
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 11:26 PM Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, at 4:14 AM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
> > On 15/03/2023 21:12, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> >> Would it be desirable to split those two things into two separate
> >> RFCs, by having the first RFC not have native syntax support, bu
Hi Larry,
czw., 16 mar 2023 o 23:26 Larry Garfield
napisał(a):
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, at 4:14 AM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
> > On 15/03/2023 21:12, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> >> Would it be desirable to split those two things into two separate
> >> RFCs, by having the first RFC not have native syntax sup
