Re: An implementation of a short syntax for closures

On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 21:18 +1000, Ryan McCue wrote: > Lazare Inepologlou wrote: > > Thank you for your interest. This is just a proposal that I have tested and > > works. Of course, the final syntax can be different. Syntax is always a > > matter of taste :-) > > As much as I love the idea, I have to agree that using | doesn't really > make sense here and actually makes the readability worse, IMO. However, > I can't really think of a better operator. ( $x ) => $x + 1 for example > would be ambiguous if used in an array definition, but is otherwise the > best in terms of readability. If you go there you can also allow more complex statements and re-use symbols used to group statements, using a syntax like ( $x ) { $x + 1; } Oh wait - now we've reached a point which was mentioned in this thread already "allow to drop the function keyword". Back when I proposed to drop "function" a key argument was that people wanted an easy way to grep for function declarations. I accepted the validity of that concern and think this might be a case here, too. The difference of these few characters is not that much but the keyword gives a clear guidance what's going on, else you might end up with a long list of random characters next to each other ... johannes