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

I like the suggested syntax. The only drawback I see is that it inhibits the future addition of union types for closures:     |int | float $x| => $x Adding parentheses of course resolves the issue but looks a bit awkward:     |(int | float) $x| => $x Apart from that I have nothing to complain about. I'd be happy either way.. On 3 Feb 2017, 21:24 +0100, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>, wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > David Rodrigues wrote: > > > > > > Hello folks! > > > I just not understand why "function" should be abbreviated. It's about > > > "how > > > less character better"? I don't see it too much on PHP. I guess that is > > > more simple keep what exists current "function", that all knows about > > > (that > > > should be better than the next example): > > > > > > $mapped = array_map(function($x) => $x + $y); // vs current: > > > $mapped = array_map(function($x) use($y) { return $x + $y }); > > > > > > I feel the same way. It would be nice to have shorter syntax, but it > > sacrifices readability and familiarity here, and adds yet another new > > keyword. > > > > It also feels inconsistent… isn't "fn" just short for > > "function"? Why is it > > exclusive to the => syntax? > > This is not exactly on topic... unless you are implying you'd prefer > the |$x| => $x + $y? Maybe you missed [this][1] message? > > [1]: http://news.php.net/php.internals/98136 > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >