I also love this idea!
This and short arrow functions and Iâm golden (in terms of closures at least) :)
On 9 Sep 2017, 03:31 +0200, Tom Worster <firstname.lastname@example.org>, wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2017, at 17:41, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > Hi everyone!
> > Here's an RFC for a small, simple, self-contained feature with no
> > backwards-compatibility breaks and which in fact doesn't even touch
> > the language's syntax (it's 50%+1 eligible!) but which could make PHP
> > a bit more expressive and consistent, especially with potential later
> > features. It even has a test designed to impose minimal maintenance
> > burden while testing a fairly large possibility space!
> > Anyway, the RFC in question is this:
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/operator_functions
> > Please tell me what you think and suggest any potential improvements
> > or anything you think might have been an omission.
> I have wanted this for many years. In the first programming language in
> which I achieved real proficiency, this was vernacular. It would make me
> happy to return to it in the language I now use most. An anonymous
> function that turns an operator into three lines looks dumb and makes me
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php