Re: [RFC]

On 11-02-2020 20:20, Dan Ackroyd wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 19:08, Dik Takken <d.h.j.takken@freedom.nl> wrote: > >> $($obj->Fot); >> However, wrapped inside $(), which only accepts >> functions and methods > > I don't think I meant that. I think it still should accept variables > as well, so it would still be ambiguous as to whether it referred to > the value of the property Fot of object $obj, or the method Fot on the > $obj class. In that case, the ambiguity issue remains. I was thinking about it as a construct for wrapping functions and methods into closures. Could you provide an example of how accepting variables would be useful? >> another possibility could be: closure(foo); > > That has the downside of exposing the implementation detail, that it's > implemented through closures, which would be a regrettable choice if > we ever decided to change the implementation details in the future. I don't think I understand. Creating a closure is something you do because of the specific semantics they have. The fact that it yields a closure is not a detail, it is the reason why I would use it... > And it also has the downside of looking like a function call, but > having different rules for what can be put inside it: > > function foo(); > closure(foo); // fine. > special_closure(foo); // syntax error, undefined constant foo. That is a downside indeed. Regards, Dik Takken