> On Mar 25, 2021, at 1:57 PM, Rowan Tommins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 25/03/2021 17:14, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>> Are you proposing auto-capture but one that is note able to change the
>> variable's value in the outer scope?
>
>
> I'm not proposing that, Nuno is. That's what this RFC proposes.
Your earlier comment confused me. I thought you were describing a genuine
concern when you mentioned by-value — so I assumed the RFC had asked for by-ref
even though I did not think it had.
But instead you were being disingenuous by not answering a legitimate question
and instead implying that those who support the RFC lack reason and that they
should just accept the status quo (copied below for reference):
> On Mar 25, 2021, at 12:50 PM, Rowan Tommins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/03/2021 15:02, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>> Can you please clarify why "function(...) use(...) {...}" can't be their
>> solution when someone needs by-reference capture?
> For the same reason - or lack of reason - why it can't be the solution when
> they need by-value capture. In other words, whatever reason people have for
> wanting this RFC.
Instead, why not simply state your position against the RFC transparently — as
you eventually did in another reply — and leave it at that? Then the deciders
can go off and make their decisions on the RFC as they will.
-Mike
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
