Short closures using ==> syntax #3945
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
So we have a place to store whether $this and varvars are used.
Unfortunately we do have to make a conservative assumption wrt static calls.
This reverts commit 5633c47.
Independent of the reverted change.
|
Closing this, as I went with #3941 in the end. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is based on top of #3941 and implements a short closure variant that uses
($x) ==> $x * $ysyntax. As mentioned in the RFC, this requires lexer scanahead, which is implemented here in proof of concept form. The actual implementation would want to also store the scanahead tokens so they can be replayed rather than relexed.I tried getting the same to work for the
($x) => $x * $ysyntax, but couldn't figure out how to do this. The problem is that some(will be incorrectly classified asT_ARROW_START, and we need additional productions to ensure thatT_ARROW_START expr ')' T_DOUBLE_ARROWis not interpreted as an arrow function inside arrays and yields. I haven't figured out how to avoid the resulting conflicts.