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

On 4 Aug 2014, at 20:41, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? Right, while &FooBar::$methodname would conflict, &$classname::foo would not. I do neither for the sake of consistency, as having one but not the other worse might cause confusion. This has the benefit, I suppose, that & is completely static. You can see at “compile-time” whether it’s valid and what function is being used. I think that would be good for static analysis. IMO, it’d also be good for Hack as it could use this instead of fun(). -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/