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

How about 'new Function()'? Might be a WTF that it creates an instance of Closure, though. On 11 Aug 2014 22:32, "Dmitry Stogov" <dmitry@zend.com> wrote: > We didn't keep pointers to functions in opcodes (however it possible in > some cases). > Instead we use cache_slots in op_array->run_time_cache array to keep > pointers to classes and functions. > Anyway, it must be quite easy to extend the patch. > > Thanks. Dmitry. > > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > > > > > On 11 Aug 2014, at 20:07, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > may be: > > > > > > $a = function strlen; > > > > > > or > > > > > > $a = function(stren); > > > > > > but these are not excellent as well :( > > > > I wanted to do the first, but it caused a shift/reduce conflict in the > > parser due to ambiguity with function () {}. The latter has been > suggested > > also. Both might be possible with an AST, but I’m not really keen on > > either, they’re quite verbose. > > > > > I may implement this part if the RFC will be accepted. > > > Actually, most of the code may be just copy-pasted from > > > ZEND_INIT_STATIC_METHOD_CALL. > > > > Interesting, I’d certainly appreciate it. :) One thing to note is that > the > > patch is currently implemented in the simplest way possible, wherein it > > just stores constant strings in the opcode. You could optimise it by > > binding ahead-of-time and passing the zend_function pointer itself, but I > > didn’t want to do that as it complicated things. > > > > -- > > Andrea Faulds > > http://ajf.me/ > > > > > > > > > > >