Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

Den 2015-09-26 kl. 09:18, skrev Pavel Kouřil:

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> 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 Thanks, Bob -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Hello, since the RFC doesn't look like it will pass, I have a question about RFC process - will you be able to "fix" the RFC and submit it for vote again with targeting PHP 7.1? The biggest issues seem to be - ~> operator instead of ==> - missing type hints - auto imports If probably the first two would be resolved, then maybe the RFC could get accepted? I personally don't understand the 3rd complain, since having to use() everything would make it "not-so-short closures". I also remember people not liking the option not to have parenthesis with single parameter. I was thinking about this, and with the type hints, it would be probably better anyways to have the ( ) required, so that would be just a single use case where they wouldn't be required - so is there a point in keeping this special use case? Regards Pavel Kouřil A good strategy. Suspect that fixing type hints & reach consensus

on auto import or not is enough to make it pass, maybe also parenthesis. I don't think ~> or ==> is cruical but then I personally favour ~> because I find it more distinct, not confusing it with => or <=>. Also having ==> might lead the thought that functionality is like == vs ===. Hm... or if someday in the future comparison operator without type juggling is needed. Regards //Björn Larsson