Simpler closure definitions

[mnapoli]

Similarly to what Pimple did in v2 this PR makes declaring entries using closures simpler.

Before:

return [
    'foo' => DI\factory(function () {
        return new Foo();
    }),
];

After:

return [
    'foo' => function () {
        return new Foo();
    },
];

DI\factory() is now optional, closures will be automatically casted to factory definitions.

This only works with closures, DI\factory() still needs to be used with other callable types, e.g. invokable object, ['Doctrine\ORM\EntityManager', 'create'], …

If one wants to inject a callable (i.e. not execute it), DI\value() needs to be used:

return [
    'foo' => DI\value(function () {
        return new Foo();
    }),
    'bar' => DI\object('stdClass')
        ->constructor(DI\link('foo')),
];

This is more complex, but I don't think it's a problem as I've never ever seen that been used (same argument was used in Pimple).

@tsteur, @diosmosis thoughts?

[diosmosis]

I think specifying application logic in DI config (ie, injecting closures w/ logic) defeats the purpose of inversion of control, and I think in general defining callback properties is an anti-pattern, so I see no issues.

[diosmosis]

I think specifying application logic in DI config (ie, injecting closures w/ logic) defeats the purpose of inversion of control, and I think in general defining callback properties is an anti-pattern, so I see no issues.

[mnapoli]

blahblahblah scratch all I've previously written here, I completely misunderstood your comment!

We are on the same page ;)

[mnapoli]

blahblahblah scratch all I've previously written here, I completely misunderstood your comment!

We are on the same page ;)

[avant1]

👍

[avant1]

👍

[tsteur]

👍

[tsteur]

👍