PHP7103 hit convert to arrow function is sometimes inappropriate

[gremo]

AFAIK is not possibile to use arrow function in the new PHP 8.5 first-class callables. This extension suggest to do so:

#[Assert\When(
    expression: static function (self $o) { return $o->isFullDay; }, // Here PHP7103 suggests to use arrow fn
    constraints: new Assert\IsNull(),
    otherwise: new Assert\NotNull())
]
public ?Time $startTime = null;

But....

Fatal error: Constant expression contains invalid operations.

#[Assert\When(
    expression: static fn (self $o) => $o->isFullDay,
    constraints: new Assert\IsNull(),
    otherwise: new Assert\NotNull())
]
public ?Time $startTime = null;

[jakubmisek]

@gremo I'm getting the same error with the anonymous function as well:

Fatal error: Constant expression contains invalid operations in ....

Is it possible that the hint was correct, but the original code is already wrong?

[gremo]

@jakubmisek let me explain better.... the original code static function works without problem.

From https://www.php.net/releases/8.5/en.php#closures-in-const-expr we know that we can use static closures and first-class callables.

When you do so... the extensione suggest PHP7103, that is "convert to arrow function"... which is wrong because static fn throws:

Fatal error: Constant expression contains invalid operations.

[jakubmisek]

@gremo I see, thank you. We should keep the static keyword, but we removed it.

[gremo]

@jakubmisek anytime. Essentially, the suggestion PHP7103 must be turned off for functions that are in constant expressions.

[jakubmisek]

@gremo I think the code action can be there, but it must remain static

[gremo]

@jakubmisek but static fn wont' work... you can only have static function in costant expression (attributes etc.).

[jakubmisek]

static fn is the same as static function, it's just a syntactic sugar. (should be the same)

Have you tried static fn() in a constant expression?

[gremo]

@jakubmisek static fn (self $o) => $o->isFullDay (first message)... so yes I've tryed it.

Is there any other "notation" for functions i'm not aware of?

[jakubmisek]

@gremo hmm I see, thank you for trying that. It is explained in the rfc, and I missed that.

[jakubmisek]

Fixed in the upcoming update 1.63

thanks!