2021-05-20 14:48 GMT+02:00, Nikita Popov :
> Hi internals,
>
> I'd like to present an RFC for a first-class callable syntax, which is
> intended as a simpler alternative to the partial function application (PFA)
> proposal:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/first_class_callable_syntax
>
> See the Ration
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 10:08 AM Rowan Tommins
wrote:
>
> Everyone: please let's keep this thread for talking about first-class
> callables, and focus on the semantics not just the syntax - are there
> edge cases we need to consider, downsides to the proposed
> implementation, etc?
>
Well the se
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:09 AM Andreas Leathley
wrote:
> [...]
>
> About the bikeshedding: Using "..." as a symbol does make sense to me,
> as variadic unpacking/variadic arguments have a similar connotation
> (referring to an unknown/arbitrary amount of elements). * was also
> suggested (as in
Le ven. 21 mai 2021 à 16:31, Larry Garfield a
écrit :
> On Fri, May 21, 2021, at 2:52 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> > Sorry for self-reply, this needs some clarifications :)
> >
> > Le ven. 21 mai 2021 à 09:17, Nicolas Grekas <
> nicolas.grekas+...@gmail.com>
> > a écrit :
>
>
> > >> There's been a
On Fri, May 21, 2021, at 2:52 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> Sorry for self-reply, this needs some clarifications :)
>
> Le ven. 21 mai 2021 à 09:17, Nicolas Grekas
> a écrit :
> >> There's been a lot of rapid iteration, experimentation, and rejection.
> >> The most recent alternatives are this on
On 20.05.21 21:35, Larry Garfield wrote:
There's been a lot of rapid iteration, experimentation, and rejection.
The most recent alternatives are this one from Levi:
https://gist.github.com/morrisonlevi/f7cf949c02f5b9653048e9c52dd3cbfd
And this one from me:
https://gist.github.com/Crell/ead27e73
On 20/05/2021 23:58, David Gebler wrote:
I think this is very sensible, I can only really say I'd rather have
Nikita's proposal land in 8.1 and PFAs in 9.0 done right than have PFAs in
8.1 but in a way which is confusing, ambiguous or problematic for users, or
not covering reasonable expected use
Sorry for self-reply, this needs some clarifications :)
Le ven. 21 mai 2021 à 09:17, Nicolas Grekas
a écrit :
> Thank you all for your efforts, I think we're almost there and that PFA
> would be a really great and useful addition to the language.
>
> Le jeu. 20 mai 2021 à 21:38, Larry Garfield
Thank you all for your efforts, I think we're almost there and that PFA
would be a really great and useful addition to the language.
Le jeu. 20 mai 2021 à 21:38, Larry Garfield a
écrit :
> On Thu, May 20, 2021, at 10:55 AM, Guilliam Xavier wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nikita Popov
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 8:38 PM Larry Garfield
wrote:
>
> There's been a lot of rapid iteration, experimentation, and rejection.
> The most recent alternatives are this one from Levi:
>
> https://gist.github.com/morrisonlevi/f7cf949c02f5b9653048e9c52dd3cbfd
>
> And this one from me:
>
> https://g
On 20/05/2021 21:54, Kamil Tekiela wrote:
This would be less confusing than the (...) syntax IMHO. Of course this
still has the same ambiguity as Rowan points out. Is ::$objA->methA a
property or a method? We could solve this problem by specifying the syntax
to always refer to methods/functions.
Hi Nikita,
I would like to just express my feelings. It's a definite YES from me for
first-class callables. We need something to replace [$this,
'privateMethod'].
I just don't like the proposed syntax. The triple period '...' has a
meaning already and reusing the same syntax isn't nice.
I haven't
On 20/05/2021 19:16, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote:
Also, considering the resolution between property and method (or between
constants and static methods) , it's clear that we need a syntax that looks
like the usual invocation:(...), or (?), (...?), ($), ($$), (...$) etc.
I'd like to expand on th
On Thu, May 20, 2021, at 10:55 AM, Guilliam Xavier wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:16 PM Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself “I know
> > > this, this is just a method call… o
On 20.05.2021 19:05, Nikita Popov wrote:
>> $fn = &Foo::myFunc;
>>
> Unfortunately, this syntax is trivially ambiguous. "$fn = &$this->myFunc"
> is currently already interpreted as a reference assignment of the property
> $this->myFunc.
could that be just fn(sth)? I mean without the => part.
$fn
On Thu, May 20, 2021, 15:48 Nikita Popov wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> I'd like to present an RFC for a first-class callable syntax, which is
> intended as a simpler alternative to the partial function application (PFA)
> proposal:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/first_class_callable_syntax
>
>
This lo
Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
> Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it,...
That is true of almost any new syntax. Some of us are still getting
used to seeing \ in front of function calls. It doesn't mean that the
syntax choice is a bad one, just that it's something new.
For me, the main questions
On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 10:17, Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
> Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself “I know
> this, this is just a method call… oh wait, it’s actually a callable”. It
> really makes my head hurt.
>
I agree with the first point — slightly confusing initially, bu
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:22 PM Luis Henrique
wrote:
> On 20/05/2021 12:55, Guilliam Xavier wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nikita Popov
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:16 PM Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself
On 20/05/2021 12:55, Guilliam Xavier wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:16 PM Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself “I know
this, this is just a method call… oh wait, it’s actually a callable”
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:16 PM Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
>
> > Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself “I know
> > this, this is just a method call… oh wait, it’s actually a callable”. It
> > really makes my head hurt.
>
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:16 PM Ondřej Mirtes wrote:
> Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself “I know
> this, this is just a method call… oh wait, it’s actually a callable”. It
> really makes my head hurt.
>
Yes, I can see how that could be confusing. The current synta
Hi, I’m confused by the syntax, when I read it, I think to myself “I know
this, this is just a method call… oh wait, it’s actually a callable”. It
really makes my head hurt.
Also, static analysers already have to reason about current code, so
PHPStan (and Psalm probably too) already supports refer
Hi internals,
I'd like to present an RFC for a first-class callable syntax, which is
intended as a simpler alternative to the partial function application (PFA)
proposal:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/first_class_callable_syntax
See the Rationale section for details on how this relates to PFA. Over t
24 matches
Mail list logo
