On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 3:50 PM Mark Randall <marand...@php.net> wrote:
>
> On 25/04/2021 20:25, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > It includes an implementation by Joe Watkins that is already about 95%
> > complete. (There's some edge cases he's still sorting out, but all of the
> > typical cases should work already.) Most of the design work comes from
> > Levi Morrison and Paul Crovella. I helped out with the tests, a few edge
> > bits, and general instigator/nudge. :-)
>
>
> Can I be a little pushy and ask for a subvote on "..." vs "...?"
>
> It _probably_ won't matter, but with ... being used as the language's
> universal variadic / unpack, we may use it for similar things in the
> years to come, and I think it makes sense to pre-empt a potential
> conflict or source of confusion down the line by using "...?".
>
> Just as a variadic function argument is ...$ a variadic partial closure
> would be ...?
>
> I do not, at this time, have a firm example of where this might become a
> problem, otherwise I would state it. The closest I can think of for now
> is that it's entirely possible that auto-capturing multiline functions
> may end up using:
>
> $x = function() use (...) { /* */ }
>
> Which could possibly be confusing. Not a definiative example by any
> stretch, but but I do get the feeling that, as we can future proof it
> for effectively zero cost, we should.
>
> Mark Randall
I do like the symmetry:
Positionals:
f($x) --> f(?)
Named:
f(x: $x) --> f(x: ?)
Variadic:
f(...$args) --> f(...?)
You are right that it _might_ be more future compatible. I don't care
about the extra character in this case, as the char does add some
visual cue:
$callback = $serializer->pack(...);
$callback = $serializer->pack(...?);
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
