I do not know if your syntax works with 5.3 but it sure makes sense, obviously.

Note that, as mentioned earlier, I had written this piece mostly tongue-in-cheek because SOAP was slowly killing me inside!

function($x)
{
return($x*10);
});

echo $arr['somFunction'](5);

With closures you could do more with the ‘use’ keyword.
$arr = array(‘val1′ => 0,
‘val2′ => 0′,
‘func’ => function()use(&$arr)
{
return($arr['val1']*$arr['val2']);
});

$arr['val1] = 5;
$arr['val2] = 10;
echo $arr['func']();

Like I said, I could be completely wrong and/or there could be a better way, like using a keyword would that would represent (this or self) to reference the array.

It’s nice that it works with a minimal amount of code, but the problems here are plentiful:
1) PHP already has the serialize() function, which does exactly what you’re talking about _and_can_hold_objects_and_pretty_much_anything_else_in_it_you_like_ – and is marginally more secure than eval()
2) Where is this kind of data going to come from? The main point of JSON is to move data across the internet – are you going to eval() data on your server that you’ve received through the internet? I hope not. If not, it’s not really an answer to JSON is it?
3) If only PHP understands it, it’s not really much use is it? As noted above, PHP already serializes far more interesting things than arrays. And it does it in compiled code, too, so it’s probably faster. Are you reinventing the wheel?
4) A nice format for shipping data between applications client-side and serverside has actually already been developed and is implemented in many languages including Python and PHP. That notation is… (drumroll) … JSON. Sure, you need an extension, but I’d rather just use the nice standard JSON extension than cook up my own black magic, hacky implementation.

As an aside, on line ~36 of the 4th block of code you used double quotes to terminate a string literal, but you used the concatenation operator to insert a variable into it. Nobody’s code is perfect, least of all mine, and that’s such a dumb thing to notice or care about but it is one of my pet hates because not only is it less efficient to parse that, it’s also more difficult to write (as you used between two and four more keystrokes than what you would have used if you’d done it properly, plus it’s not quite as readable)…

Your other articles are all fantastic. I loved them, I learned from them, I was inspired by them. But with this particular one, I just don’t get it.