Re: [RFC] Allow "use( $longname as $alias)" syntax for closures declaration

> Yes, the original used "$this->getFooBar()" -- but it could have been > "$someOtherObject->getFooBar()" Yep, you and Anthony are right, my comment was stupid... Then I have an other objection :) I'm not comfortable with mixing declarative lines with expressions: function (..) use (..) is always purely declarative, whatever the (..) but function (..) use ((expression) as $foo) isn't any more. I would feel the same e.g. with a syntax like: function ($a = $foo->bar()) {} (a closure with default argument calculated once but give as expression.) If you like "use ((expr) as $foo)", do you like the above? This is an open question, a yes would be coherent, but otherwise, why allow one and not the other? > > > Also, remember that the closure is in fact another function, a > function > > > that performs its own actions independent of the parent. > > > > Actions may be independent, but as a closure is declared inside its > parent, > > both codes have very strong relationship. For the reader, overriding this > > relationship with new closure-local var names can weaken its > understanding > > of the code don't you think? > > The closure is a function itself; readability within it is just as > important as readability of the parent. I'd personally rather not have a > lot of boilerplate code marshalling variables to start off my closure -- > I'd rather they were simply declared and ready for use. > The closure is yours, but the parent is also yours, so if you think $l is better than $long, then why not for the parent also? Naming (and understanding) things is hard enough to not give two names to the same code-local thing... But that's only me sharing my feeling :) Nicolas