Re: [RFC]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 17:49, Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> wrote: > > Nicolas Grekas wrote: > > I wish this would return a Closure instead, making $foo::function the > > equivalent of Closure::fromCallable($foo). > > I didn't include the following in that RFC, because I thought it would > be too controversial, but I think it's worth considering a new syntax > for this. > > Given the code: > > function foo(); > class Zoq { > public function Fot() {} > public static function Pik() {} > } > $obj = new Zoq(); > > > Then these: > > $(foo); > $($obj, Fot); > $(Zoq, Fot); > > Would be equivalent to: > > Closure::fromCallable('foo'); > Closure::fromCallable([$obj, 'Fot']); > Closure::fromCallable('Zoq::Fot'); or Closure::fromCallable(['Zoq', > 'Fot']); > > Or similar. > > The justification for having a dedicated syntax is that I think > readability is quite important in code, and it's reasonably common for > me to have quite long lists of 'callables'. > > [Bar::class, foo1::function], > [Bar::class, foo2::function], > [Bar::class, foo3::function], > [Bar::class, foo4::function] > > vs > > $(Bar, foo1), > $(Bar, foo2), > $(Bar, foo3), > $(Bar, foo4) > > The latter is far easier to read for me. > > Nikita Popov wrote: > > This would circumvent all the issues outlined in > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/consistent_callables. > > Probably there would still be some issues with some of the weird stuff > happening internally in SPL related code where the deep horrors > rest...but we can leave them alone...and they might not wake. > > cheers > Dan > Ack Hi, Dan, I like it, although syntax reminds me to JQuery syntax. Thanks