Re: [RFC]

> On Feb 13, 2020, at 1:48 PM, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote: >> But since I seem to be in the minority of caring about the name, let me >> propose the following which was influenced by Larry Garfield's most >> recent post. Since it seems that people want the convenience of a >> short notation to get a closure, how about this: >> >> function foo{} >> >> foo::function — Returns name of function >> foo::fn — Returns closure for function >> >> Since using fn creates anonymous function closures it kinda >> makes >> sense that ::fn would return a closure. >> >> -Mike > > thinking-face-emoji.gif. I could be convinced of that. It seems like "both" is a > possible solution, but my concern would be someone using one of them in a case where either works, > inadvertently, when the callee is expecting just one. Eg, getting into the habit of using foo::fn, > and then using it on a builder routine that chokes "later" when it tries to serialize > something. True. But it would be a really high bar to say we can only add new features if we can completely protect the developer from themselves. At some point we have to assume programmers are adults, or at least can take responsibility for learning how the language works. -Mike P.S. OTOH, if the routine that requires ::function and not ::fn were to type hint the parameter, it would choke with an applicable error message.