On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:12, Antony Dovgal <t...@daylessday.org> wrote: >>> Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda >>> hieroglyphic? >> No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see why we >> needed an alternative (short) syntax for arrays. This kind of syntax >> additions that add *no* functionality, should not be in PHP. > Yes, I believe we should stop this stream of alternative syntax proposals > and concentrate on fixing existing functionality instead of adding less > readable ways to do > the same thing. I would really like to keep PHP code easily readable, not to > turn it into > perl-ish write-only gibberish.
100% agreed, both about the cryptic nature of the proposed syntax and the need to focus on fixing existing issues. Strong -1 on a new syntax. The current PHP syntax for closures is the second-best one I've ever used, IMHO. Clear, readable, explicit. My all-time favorite syntax is that favored by Objective-C: ^ [returntype] ([params]) { code; } The compiler figures out at build time which lexical stuff to capture, and in most cases can infer the optional return type. I'd kinda love a ^ (params) use (captures) { code; } syntax in PHP, but nothing any less wordy than that, and I'd hardly consider it any kind of priority. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php