Re: [RFC]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 17:06, Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote: > 1. IF foo::function returns a name string THEN using > Closure::fromCallable( foo::function ) can provide a closure. > > 2. IF foo::function returns a closure THEN how to we get the name string? > Right, I'm with you now. However, I think the answer people are suggesting to "how do we get the name string?" is "why do we need to?" Or as Chase Peeler more eloquently put it: > Can anyone think of a use-case where you would want a string name of a > function and a callable would not be acceptable, besides possibly debugging > code that said 'echo "I'm calling ".myfunction::function;'? Everything that > I can think of that accepts a function name, also accepts a callable (e.g. > array_map), but I could be forgetting something. There's a Venn diagram, essentially, of: a) use cases where a Closure would be useful, but a string wouldn't b) use cases where a string would be useful, but a Closure wouldn't c) use cases where either a string or a Closure would be useful If (and it's a genuine open question) all the use cases fall into categories (a) and (c), we can make the syntax for closures simpler by skipping the "get name" step and making foo::fn return a closure straight away. So the question is, are there use cases that fall into category (b)? Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]