On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Rowan Collins <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 15/10/2013 17:11, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>>
>> In general: Getting rid of it is good. But mind that closures are no
>> full replacement as with create_function() the code can be created on
>> the fly.
>
>
> Yes, I agree that there is no trvial solution which is 100% feature (and
> bug) compatible with create_function(). However, I think the more important
> question is whether there are any particular *use cases* which can't be
> easily migrated to a different mechanism.
That's the actual question, why should they?
> My gut feel is that at least 95% of uses of create_function are to create
> dynamic callbacks for usort, preg_replace_callback, array_filter, etc. For
> these uses, the implementation as an eval() is a liability, and
> reimplementing with real closures is trivial (assuming no need to run on
> <=5.2).
Yes, as many other new features allow cleaner codes. However I do not
see this case as good enough to add more deprecated notices to
perfectly valid codes.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org