Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Short Closures

> Am 07.09.2015 um 02:59 schrieb Sara Golemon <php@golemon.com>: > > On Sep 6, 2015, at 07:01, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Also, Hack is using a completely different parser, doesn't look like we could borrow >> anything there. >> > True, Hack's parser is ocaml based and unrecognizable to the majority of this list. But > HHVM's parser (which implements the runtime side of Hack), is a flex/bison parser, not just > similar to, but actually directly descended from PHP 5.2's parser. Sure things have diverged > since then, but the overall rule structure is nearly identical in spirit. Borrowing concepts should > be trivial. > > -Sara Oh, I thought that feature to be Hack-only. Looks like I'm wrong and hence looked at the wrong place. [I always heard Hack has short Closures, but never was told HHVM had them too...] But as I see you use a T_LAMBDA_OP which is inserted by a token-pre-parser before it's being analyzed by the real parser. Wouldn't say we really could compare that. It's a lot of complication... If I remember correctly, we had a similar reason back then to reject my initial keywords as identifiers patch as it was using that type of approach. Honestly, a %glr-parser bison directive would look cleaner here. But I'm not sure if we want to go that route down as a LALR(1) has much more deterministic performance characteristics... Bob