Re: [RFC][Discuss] Arrow Functions

Ah, my example was of course wrong again -.- The caller should’ve looked like this (although I think you get the point): ```Swift fetchUsers { users in    // users is inferred to be an array of Users } ``` Regards On 4 Feb 2017, 16:41 +0100, ilija.tovilo@me.com, wrote: > Hey Stephen > > > You don't *have to* specify types at all. If you want to use PHP without > > verifying/requiring types, thats your prerogative, but given the recent improvements to allow scalar > > type hinting, I think it’s a mistake to say that *any* use of type hints is “not recommended”. > > Sure you don’t but then you loose all the benefits of specifying types. We want typing but > only if we don’t have to specify types all over the place. I really dislike having to add PHPDocs > everywhere just to get some proper autocompletions. > > > I'm not sure if you've mixed up your terms of if I'm too tired but I > > don't understand what you mean here. The short arrow function *is* the callee, and that’s > > where you’re suggesting we shouldn’t use type hints. > > Sorry, that was confusing. I was thinking of a situation like this one: > > ```Swift > func fetchUsers(callback: ([User]) -> Void) { >     ... > } > ``` > > So, the callee (fetchUsers) defines what the provided closure > must look like. > The caller, on the other hand, doesn’t have to specify that again as you’re just repeating > yourself. > > ```Swift > fetchUsers { user in >    // user is inferred to be a > User object > } > ``` > > So I don’t think the burden of providing typing information should be on the caller providing > the closure. > > > The whole issue with that is that using a pipe character could make things much less > > clear/readable if the already established use of pipe for “type unions” (currently used in > > multi-catch) were to be implemented for general type hint usage. > > > > Note: I’m not saying it’s not possible, but it’s *much* less readable, and any > > “solution” just adds more characters, which is apparently the only reason to not use > > function($foo) => $foo in the first place. > > But again, that’s personal preference. I like short a precise and think it’s more readable. > Not everyone’s the same. > > >  For most people readability isn't just about the number of characters. > > A lot of the time it is. Brains are very good at recognising patterns, they don’t need large > keywords for that. > As for me, I think it just adds clutter to the actual logic that I’m interested in. >