Re: [RFC] Closure::call and Function Referencing as Closures

Andrea Faulds wrote (on 04/08/2014):

It doesn’t collide, there is no syntactical ambiguity at an engine level, at least.

You do mention one collision in the RFC though:

It does not permit dynamic references such as |&$classname::foo|, due to conflicts with existing syntax and for symmetry (while |&$classname::foo| would be doable, |&FooBar::$foo| is not, so we do neither).

I'm not entirely sure of the reasoning in the parentheses, actually. Do you just mean that only the &FooBar::$foo case conflicts with existing logic? It would be a shame having just made great progress in making the syntax more regular to have to include arbitrary exceptions to a feature just for lack of unambiguous syntax. -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]