Re: Callable type
| From: | Matthew Weier O'Phinney | Date: | Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:41:37 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Callable type | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-53186@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 2011-06-07, dukeofgaming <dukeofgaming@gmail.com> wrote:
> --0016e68ee3e4bc4b0e04a525bac6
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> +1 for "callable", it is really more consistent.
I was actually agreeing With David and Stas that "callback" was more
consistent, and casting my vote for that.
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <
> weierophinney@php.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2011-06-07, David Z=FClke <david.zuelke@bitextender.com> wrote:
> > > On 07.06.2011, at 22:31, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> > > > > callback is callable, the opposite could not be true. a string
> > > > > --or a closure-- is callable, but the string is not a callback
> > > >
> > > According to our docs, which were out there for years, it is. One of
> > > the main and widespread complaints about PHP is the lack of any system
> > > in naming, design and documentation, it is sad to see how many people
> > > want to make it worse instead of making it better
> > >
> > > +1. I'm thinking it should be "callback", or the docs should be
> > > adjusted. "callable" arguably does make more sense, but either way, it
> > > needs to be consistent, that's what matters most.
> >
> > Agreed, here. "callback" is the usage throughout the documentation to
> > refer to anything that passes is_callable().
--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead | matthew@zend.com
Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/
PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc