Den søn. 28. mar. 2021 kl. 13.02 skrev Deleu <deleu...@gmail.com>: > > This would lead to inconsistent behavior in the language when short closures > auto capture without the auto keyword while multi statements closure doesn't. > One of the best features of these RFC are their cognitive definition that is > clear, concise, consistent and simple.
(First off, please read our mailing lists rules[1] and do not top post) If we go by the inconsistent behavior then by that definition short arrow functions are inconsistent with the rest of PHP as there is no auto capture elsewhere. This is not short arrow functions being expanded to support multi lines, but rather the other way around, with multi line closures being able to support auto capture which is identified by the `fn` keyword and because of that, I would much rather have a `fn` be an alias of `function` and then having the ability to put a keyword to declare that you wish to use auto capture (which is consistent with the exisiting design of PHP where you have to declare globals with the `global` keyword or explicit imports to closures with the `use` statement (which used to be done by the `lexical` keyword similarily to the `global` keyword in early PHP 5.3.0 development) -- if you are interested in this philosophy you can try lookup videos from some of Rasmus' presentations where he explains his dislike with globals coming from C). To back this up further, we also have the `static` keyword which acts as a feature flag so it is not unnatural, the naming of the keyword `auto` sure, but that is another discussion. [1] https://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=blob_plain;f=docs/mailinglist-rules.md;hb=HEAD regards, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
