Re: Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 18:12 Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > Hi Levi, > > Levi Morrison wrote: > > Here is an example of an existing closure: > > > > function ($x) use ($arr) { > > return $arr[$x]; > > } > > > > This RFC proposes syntax and semantics to simplify this common usage to: > > > > fn($x) => $arr[$x] > > > > Is it necessary to introduce a new keyword, fn? > > I think you'd get a similar benefit from: > > function($x) => $arr[$x] > > Likewise, is it necessary to restrict auto-capture to the => syntax? > Couldn't we allow the following? > > function ($x) { > return $arr[$x]; > } > This looks too similar to the current syntax, just ignoring the use() statement. I would add a concurance that => syntax is slightly awkward when used within an array element $a = [ 'func' => fn($x) => Class::method($x), ]; But I'm not overly certain of a different syntax to handle this. I would support expanding to function over fn, to make it more readable/keep the same reserved word. (Although not too certain to the complexity in the parser) Otherwise +1, I like this. -- Dave