Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Operator functions
| From: | Tom Worster | Date: | Sat, 09 Sep 2017 01:31:10 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Operator functions | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-100478@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
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