Re: [RFC] Short Closures 2, aka auto-capture take 3

> > > Because variables are captured by-value, Short Closures can not have > > > unintended side effects. > > > > Those statements are true for scalar values. They are not true for objects: > > This is shown in the "No unintended side-effects" section of the RFC. I'm confused by the last example: $fn2 = function () use (&$a) { /* code with $a AND $b */ } Isn't that missing a ", $b" in the use? And like others, I also find that allowing mixing explicit *by-value* capture with auto-capture is not really needed and even confusing; if you "expect that explicitly capturing by value will be rare in practice" you might as well forbid it? Maybe you don't even need to add explicit [by-reference] capture to short closures at all, but rather extend *long* closures so that we can write things like: $val1 = rand(); $val2 = rand(); $ref = null; $fn1 = function () use (...) { /* do something with $val1 and $val2 */ }; $fn2 = function () use (&$ref, ...) { $ref = $val1 + $val2; }; (and even if not, at least mention in the RFC that it has been considered)? By the way, what about *arrow* functions? e.g. $fn = fn () use (&$ref) => $ref = $val1 + $val2; // assigns and returns Would that be allowed? Is it really *desirable*? Regards, -- Guilliam Xavier