Re: Could we kill call_user_func?

On 3/21/13 7:37 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Steve Clay wrote:

call_user_func() just seems so ugly now that we have nicer syntax in so many other areas.

That doesn't mean we should just be ripping out functionality that works perfectly fine.

I was not clear in my initial post. I don't want call_user_func removed, just made unnecessary. To reiterate why: 1. call_user_func fails reference args. (It's not a full substitute for a direct call) 2. Most callable values are already directly callable: ✓ func as string ✓ dynamic method as array ✓ static method as array

     static method as string

✓ Closure ✓ object with __invoke

     Closure in object property (I understand why this is off the table)
     expression containing Closure in object property

If always store the callable in a var, the situation is much better: ✓ func as string ✓ dynamic method as array ✓ static method as array

     static method as string

✓ Closure ✓ object with __invoke ✓ Closure in object property How difficult would it be to support making this work? $c = "Foo::bar"; $c(); Steve Clay -- http://www.mrclay.org/