Re: RFC [Discussion]: Closure self-reference

On 3-6-2023 21:11, Dan Ackroyd wrote:

Hi internals, I'm now opening the discussion for the Closure self-reference RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closure_self_reference This was previously discussed as a draft here: https://externals.io/message/112216#112216 Thank-you to KapitanOczywisty for the implementation. cheers Dan Ack

Hi Dan, When I read the RFC, I keep wondering why new syntax is needed for this. Isn't this a solved problem with the solution being "use a named function" ? Might I suggest to expand the RFC to answer all or at least some of the below questions ? * Why is a recursive function call something which should be supported at the language level for closures ? * Was the pre-existing syntax available to solve this - named functions - considered ? * Why is using named functions not considered a valid solution by the RFC proposers ? As for the syntax choice: it seems like the proposed choice is largely arbitrary and personal to the authors to go for a "languagesy" syntax. * Was any research done on how frequently this is expected to be used ? * If so, does that frequency justify the need for a change at the language level ? * Was any research done to find out syntax preferences from anyone other than the authors ? * Was the impact of introducing (yet another) syntax level change on static analysis tools considered ?

    As a co-maintainer of a static analysis tool, I would have a strong preference for either __CLOSURE__ or a static function on the Closure class as that would make the syntax "isolated" to this change, while an as $fn syntax change would mean that any analysis of the as keyword and a lot of analysis of variables will need to be adjusted to allow for this new syntax.
    Not necessarily a reason to change the proposal, but possibly something to consider.

Either way, my two pennies for whatever they are worth. Smile, Juliette