Re: [Vote] Partial Function Application
| From: | Larry Garfield | Date: | Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:30:43 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [Vote] Partial Function Application | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-114927@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, at 3:01 AM, Côme Chilliet wrote:
> Le Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:16:28 -0500,
> "Larry Garfield" <larry@garfieldtech.com> a écrit :
>
> > Hi folks. The vote for the Partial Function Application RFC is now open, and
> > will run until 30 June.
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/partial_function_application
>
> From the RFC:
>
> > The ? character was chosen for the placeholder largely because it was
> > unambiguous and easy to implement. Prior, similar RFCs (such as the original
> > Pipe Operator proposal from several years ago) used the $$ (lovingly called
> > T_BLING) sigil instead. So far no compelling argument has been provided for
> > changing the character, so the RFC is sticking with ?.
>
> The main argument for $$ is to be able to have partial methods with $$->, this
> should be stated in this paragraph.
That's not something that was ever brought up in the discussion.
--Larry Garfield