rfc:currying

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
rfc:currying [2011/06/07 11:49]
lstrojny More on error handling
rfc:currying [2017/09/22 13:28] (current)
Line 137: Line 137:
 </​code>​ </​code>​
  
-== Pitfalls == +=== Pitfalls ​and criticism === 
-There are a few concerns to implement it that way =+== Performance ==
 How is performance affected because of the heavy use of Closure objects? I don’t know yet, any guesses? How is performance affected because of the heavy use of Closure objects? I don’t know yet, any guesses?
  
-= Error Handling =+== Error Handling ​==
 Error messages could be misleading. E.g. not passing an argument to ''​$func()''​ would result in a warning for a missing argument when calling ''​$func()''​ without any mention of ''​strpos()''​. One way to overcome this problem would be to have ''​class CurriedFunction extends Closure''​. This subclass would contain additional properties for a nicer the error message. It would even be possible to override error handling for ''​CurriedFunction::​__invoke()''​ to make it more specific. Error messages could be misleading. E.g. not passing an argument to ''​$func()''​ would result in a warning for a missing argument when calling ''​$func()''​ without any mention of ''​strpos()''​. One way to overcome this problem would be to have ''​class CurriedFunction extends Closure''​. This subclass would contain additional properties for a nicer the error message. It would even be possible to override error handling for ''​CurriedFunction::​__invoke()''​ to make it more specific.
  
rfc/currying.txt · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 (external edit)