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

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022, at 7:05 AM, Guilliam Xavier wrote: >> > > 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? Arnaud and I discussed it, and we're going to drop the mix-autocapture-and-manual functionality. I was tepid on it to begin with, and it can be confusing. RFC will be updated soon. > 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*? I don't think it's really desireable. By-ref closure is unusual, probably even less so in one line closures (though I've not checked that specifically), references are usually a bad idea anyway, and in those unusual cases the long-form is still there if you want to control everything. --Larry Garfield