Hello Andi, Thursday, June 19, 2008, 8:44:07 AM, you wrote:
> See below: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christian Seiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:14 PM >> To: php-dev List >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] [RFC] Closures and lambda functions in PHP >> >> Frankly, I don't really see a problem with using references. It fits >> into what's already there in PHP and it assures that closures have the >> necessary properties to make them useful. > I think you are right that there isn't really a good alternative as the > "parent" scope does not necessarily exist anymore. Your solution is likely > the best. I though we are speaking of PHP here? And all I remeber is that PHP has reference counting. So it doesn't matter if we do reference or value binding. We simply have to increase the internal reference counter - done. > >> >> - Please check eval(). I assume it will bind to global scope but >> >> let's just make sure what happens esp. when it's called from within >> >> a method... >> >> Hmm, closures inside eval() will bind variables to the scope in which >> eval() was called. But closures defined inside eval will NOT be class >> methods, even if eval() is called within a class. >> >> But I do find that behaviour consistent with what PHP currently does >> with normal functions and variables: If eval()'d or include()'d inside a >> function, variables will the "global scope" of eval() or the included >> file will actually be the local function scope whereas defined functions >> inside will automatically become global functions. >> >> Of course, this behaviour should be documented but I don't see a reason >> to try and change it. > I agree. It behaves as I would expect I just wanted to make sure you > verify that because I didn't have the opportunity to do so. You'd > actually have to work very hard for it not to behave in that way :) Let's > just make sure we have unit tests for both cases just so we have a good > regression on this one. >> >> - In PHP 5, object storage is resources done right. I don't think >> >> we should be using the resource infrastructure for this >> >> implementation and would prefer to use the object one. It's better. >> >> I suggest to take a look at it. >> >> Hmm, seems like a good idea. If nobody objects in the next few days, >> I'll rewrite my patch to use objects instead of resources. What class >> name do you suggest? > Great. I think Closure is probably a good name. > [Btw, if we want to get fancy we could even have a __toString() method > on those which would print out information about the Closure. But this is > not a must, just something which eventually could be nice for debugging > purposes...] >> PS: Somebody made me aware of a segfault in my code when destroying the >> closure variable while still inside the closure. I'll fix that. > :) > Thanks, > Andi Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
