On 12/20/07, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > you prefer cluttering namespace with a lot of oneliners? > > Oh, come on.. Since when do we call it "cluttering"? > Is there some kind of limit on number of functions in a namespace? > > Why limit yourself and "inline" the function instead of putting it > into a nice library of utility functions?
it doesn't make sense to put some of these functions in libraries, because they are really once-used. another good reason is, that optimizer can safely inline this function by eliminating function call at all (using cycle as an internal representation, while letting keep short one in source) > > currently, people prefer to use explicit cycles instead of > > array_map/array_filter and that looks ugly (hides actual logic behind > > syntax), but at least it is not as slow as create_function. > > Whatever people currently use - it's their choice. > If you think that people would magically switch to the new syntax (if we > decide to > add it after all) in a moment, I'm afraid I have to upset you - this will not > happen > in the next 10 years because of many reasons, so people would still use the > good > old syntax they're used to. > > So here is what we _actually_ get with this anonymous function syntax: > 1) Yet another way to make the code unreadable and overcomplicated. it is not unreadable. it is perfectly readable for people with modern-languages background (and I don't mean 1 or 2 languages, I mean majority) > 2) Yet another incompatible syntax you cannot use if you need to support > older PHP versions > (and you can't check for it in runtime, since this is a compile time thingie). yes > 3) 10 people happy because they got a new toy. "thousands" is a closer number -- Alexey Zakhlestin http://blog.milkfarmsoft.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
