Or maybe it'll look okay if you format the code?
$things->forEach({$v => {
foo($v);
bar($v);
}});
Still looks kinda crazy with the closing "}})" though...
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Rasmus Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
> I actually like this syntax, but what would it look like for
> multi-statement closures?
>
> A nested set of curly braces around the body would look pretty messy.
>
> $things->forEach({$v => { foo($v); bar($v); }});
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Levi Morrison <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Ilija Tovilo <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Sorry, I wasn’t aware of that.
>> >
>> > What do you think of the Ruby/Rust style syntax that Levi proposed a
>> while back?
>> >
>> > $someDict
>> > ->map(|$v| $v * 2)
>> > ->filter(|$v| $v % 3);
>> >
>> > This one has a few advantages:
>> >
>> > 1. It has syntax (a lot of) developers are already familiar with
>> > 2. It has no ambiguities and is fully backward compatible
>> > 3. It’s the shortest of all options available (two `|` characters and
>> one space)
>>
>> We determined that the arrow between the parameters and the expression
>> would still be required. Given this limitation I think this syntax is
>> seviceable:
>>
>> $someDict
>> ->map({$v => $v * 2})
>> ->filter({$v => $v % 3});
>>
>> Sometime this week I intend to start another thread that narrows us
>> down to two choices.
>>
>
>
