Re: Idea for better function callbacks (another syntactic sugar)

On Friday, October 26, 2018 7:29:46 AM CDT Crocodile wrote: > Hi internals! > > I have this idea of improving the way to specify callbacks for good old PHP > functions. For instance, I have this piece of code: > > --------------- > array_filter($names, 'trim') > --------------- > > The callback function name is specified as a string, which makes it > not-so-obvious, although this is definitely a PHP way. An alternative would > be to rewrite this using a lambda: > > --------------- > array_filter($names, function($name) { return trim($name); }) > --------------- > > This is way more wordy, and I bet most of us will go for the first option. > > What if we had a more clear way of specifying those callbacks? I suggest > the following: > > --------------- > array_filter($names, function::trim) > --------------- > > It is, I believe, more clear then a simple string, just a bit more wordy, > and since "function" is a reserved word which never had anything to do with > "::", the lexer/parser could probably find a way to deal with this kind of > syntax (well, honestly, this part is totally unclear for me because I only > work with PHP from userland). > > Does anyone else find this could be a good addition? Or is it not worth > considering? Or maybe I am missing some obvious pitfalls? > > Cheers, > Victor I believe the proposal for short lambas (which should get resurrected at some point) would handle this case well enough as well as help a dozen other things. To wit: array_filter($names, |$x| ==> trim($x)) --Larry Garfield

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] This is a digitally signed message part. signature.asc