Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

Hi Bob, Bob Weinand wrote:

Hey, Thanks for all your feedback in the discussion thread! So, before I start the vote, just two quick notes: I've added two notes about the statement syntax and the single variable use. Though a few people complained, I'm not switching to the ==> operator, as I noticed many people expected typehints to work (they don't due to parser limitations) when they compared to Hack's short Closures. It also allows us to differ syntax-wise [e.g. for typehints] from Hack without causing any confusion later. Which should be the smartest choice: Avoid conflicts. (If anyone strongly feels against that, he may vote no, but I would like to not bikeshed that in this Vote thread, but leave it free for eventual actual issues.) Now, the link to the RFC about Short Closures: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short_closures or straight ahead to the vote: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short_closures#vote

I am unhappy with the ~> syntax choice. As I've mentioned before, it's hard to type for many people, it looks too much like ->, and it's unnecessarily different from Hack's ==>, of which this RFC would otherwise be proposing a strict subset. So, I am voting against. Thanks. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/