2021-05-20 14:48 GMT+02:00, Nikita Popov :
> Hi internals,
>
> I'd like to present an RFC for a first-class callable syntax, which is
> intended as a simpler alternative to the partial function application (PFA)
> proposal:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/first_class_callable_syntax
>
> See the Ration
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 10:08 AM Rowan Tommins
wrote:
>
> Everyone: please let's keep this thread for talking about first-class
> callables, and focus on the semantics not just the syntax - are there
> edge cases we need to consider, downsides to the proposed
> implementation, etc?
>
Well the se
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:09 AM Andreas Leathley
wrote:
> [...]
>
> About the bikeshedding: Using "..." as a symbol does make sense to me,
> as variadic unpacking/variadic arguments have a similar connotation
> (referring to an unknown/arbitrary amount of elements). * was also
> suggested (as in
Le ven. 21 mai 2021 à 16:31, Larry Garfield a
écrit :
> On Fri, May 21, 2021, at 2:52 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> > Sorry for self-reply, this needs some clarifications :)
> >
> > Le ven. 21 mai 2021 à 09:17, Nicolas Grekas <
> nicolas.grekas+...@gmail.com>
> > a écrit :
>
>
> > >> There's been a
On Fri, May 21, 2021, at 2:52 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> Sorry for self-reply, this needs some clarifications :)
>
> Le ven. 21 mai 2021 à 09:17, Nicolas Grekas
> a écrit :
> >> There's been a lot of rapid iteration, experimentation, and rejection.
> >> The most recent alternatives are this on
On 20.05.21 21:35, Larry Garfield wrote:
There's been a lot of rapid iteration, experimentation, and rejection.
The most recent alternatives are this one from Levi:
https://gist.github.com/morrisonlevi/f7cf949c02f5b9653048e9c52dd3cbfd
And this one from me:
https://gist.github.com/Crell/ead27e73
On 20/05/2021 23:58, David Gebler wrote:
I think this is very sensible, I can only really say I'd rather have
Nikita's proposal land in 8.1 and PFAs in 9.0 done right than have PFAs in
8.1 but in a way which is confusing, ambiguous or problematic for users, or
not covering reasonable expected use
Sorry for self-reply, this needs some clarifications :)
Le ven. 21 mai 2021 à 09:17, Nicolas Grekas
a écrit :
> Thank you all for your efforts, I think we're almost there and that PFA
> would be a really great and useful addition to the language.
>
> Le jeu. 20 mai 2021 à 21:38, Larry Garfield
Thank you all for your efforts, I think we're almost there and that PFA
would be a really great and useful addition to the language.
Le jeu. 20 mai 2021 à 21:38, Larry Garfield a
écrit :
> On Thu, May 20, 2021, at 10:55 AM, Guilliam Xavier wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nikita Popov
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 8:38 PM Larry Garfield
wrote:
>
> There's been a lot of rapid iteration, experimentation, and rejection.
> The most recent alternatives are this one from Levi:
>
> https://gist.github.com/morrisonlevi/f7cf949c02f5b9653048e9c52dd3cbfd
>
> And this one from me:
>
> https://g
On 20/05/2021 21:54, Kamil Tekiela wrote:
This would be less confusing than the (...) syntax IMHO. Of course this
still has the same ambiguity as Rowan points out. Is ::$objA->methA a
property or a method? We could solve this problem by specifying the syntax
to always refer to methods/functions.
Hi Nikita,
I would like to just express my feelings. It's a definite YES from me for
first-class callables. We need something to replace [$this,
'privateMethod'].
I just don't like the proposed syntax. The triple period '...' has a
meaning already and reusing the same syntax isn't nice.
I haven't
On 20/05/2021 19:16, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote:
Also, considering the resolution between property and method (or between
constants and static methods) , it's clear that we need a syntax that looks
like the usual invocation:(...), or (?), (...?), ($), ($$), (...$) etc.
I'd like to expand on th
On Thu, May 20, 2021, at 10:55 AM, Guilliam Xavier wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:16 PM Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself “I know
> > > this, this is just a method call… o
On 20.05.2021 19:05, Nikita Popov wrote:
>> $fn = &Foo::myFunc;
>>
> Unfortunately, this syntax is trivially ambiguous. "$fn = &$this->myFunc"
> is currently already interpreted as a reference assignment of the property
> $this->myFunc.
could that be just fn(sth)? I mean without the => part.
$fn
On Thu, May 20, 2021, 15:48 Nikita Popov wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> I'd like to present an RFC for a first-class callable syntax, which is
> intended as a simpler alternative to the partial function application (PFA)
> proposal:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/first_class_callable_syntax
>
>
This lo
Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
> Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it,...
That is true of almost any new syntax. Some of us are still getting
used to seeing \ in front of function calls. It doesn't mean that the
syntax choice is a bad one, just that it's something new.
For me, the main questions
On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 10:17, Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
> Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself “I know
> this, this is just a method call… oh wait, it’s actually a callable”. It
> really makes my head hurt.
>
I agree with the first point — slightly confusing initially, bu
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:22 PM Luis Henrique
wrote:
> On 20/05/2021 12:55, Guilliam Xavier wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nikita Popov
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:16 PM Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself
On 20/05/2021 12:55, Guilliam Xavier wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:16 PM Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself “I know
this, this is just a method call… oh wait, it’s actually a callable”
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:16 PM Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
>
> > Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself “I know
> > this, this is just a method call… oh wait, it’s actually a callable”. It
> > really makes my head hurt.
>
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:16 PM Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
> Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself “I know
> this, this is just a method call… oh wait, it’s actually a callable”. It
> really makes my head hurt.
>
Yes, I can see how that could be confusing. The current synta
Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself “I know
this, this is just a method call… oh wait, it’s actually a callable”. It
really makes my head hurt.
Also, static analysers already have to reason about current code, so
PHPStan (and Psalm probably too) already supports refer
23 matches
Mail list logo
