Hi Nikita,
Nikita Popov wrote:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
I like the general idea here, but have some comments.
My main observation is that this proposal is only really useful in
combination with a form of partial application.
Indeed. I think the RFC feels somewha
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:41 PM, 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 exp
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:41 PM, 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 exp
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
featur
