Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100798
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain brzuchalski.com designates 188.165.245.118 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4Nrf06iBhcvoD7Q8o85oLgmOc_+R8Dg5SKP5BAqTZXR04w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAESVnVo4axBD86qLbXvq4Mb39Dgdx_RQ1rH3KEG8ToaF7CbDag@mail.gmail.com>
 <98e7fff2-72ac-0430-72bb-099a021626f6@gmail.com> <CAESVnVqN05VsX8dvnN39rdEo=8MkzSWtr=nhP27jY71HxRdn=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4Nrf06iBhcvoD7Q8o85oLgmOc_+R8Dg5SKP5BAqTZXR04w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:29:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CABdc3Wpja=rXfq5YtiH_acTDY_x47cL0Gpx0ORqdDwUcXF_0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Cc: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c09c3028c34d6055a50aaec"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pre-draft for PipeOp v2
From: michal@brzuchalski.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Brzuchalski?=)

--94eb2c09c3028c34d6055a50aaec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2017-09-28 21:07 GMT+02:00 Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>:

> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.co=
m
> >
> > wrote:
> > > It'd be also nice then if we could have some syntax that allowed us t=
o
> > > refer to functions/methods as callables - mostly for the benefit of t=
he
> > > code readers and IDEs. I.e. you can do "hello" |> "strtoupper" and it=
's
> > > fine but it is not at all intuitive what you're doing sending one
> string
> > > into another. Same with "hello" |> [$this, 'bar']. Now, if we could d=
o
> > > something like this:
> > > "hello" |> &{strtoupper}
> > > "hello" |> &{$this->bar}
> > >
> > Super-hacky implementation (that I wouldn't want to merge, but it
> > shows the syntax at work).
> >
> > https://github.com/php/php-src/compare/master...sgolemon:lambda
> > which provides a form of both short-closures and partial functions.
> >
> > Combined with also-super-hacky pipe diff from earlier, you get:
> >
> > $x =3D "Hello"
> >   |> &{strtoupper($0)}
> >   |> &{ $0 . "world" }
> >   |> &{strrev($0)};
> >
> > var_dump($x);
> > // string(10) "dlrowOLLEH"
> >
> > -Sara
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
>
> By the way the `&` is not required. When experimenting with possible shor=
t
> closure syntax I created an implementation for `{}` to make sure it was
> possible:
>
>   $x =3D "Hello"
>     |> {strtoupper($0)}
>     |> { $0 . "world" }
>     |> {strrev($0)};
>
> If people would prefer that syntax for short-closures then that's fine by
> me. If we made it this concise there wouldn't be a need for a `$$` propos=
al
> anyway.
>

I love this syntax with braces, I wanted to do like it in
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-closures
but only for replacement of string or array callables as closures.


>
> ---
>
> My impression from the community is that the pipe operator is desirable b=
ut
> not if it encourages string or array callables. In that vein which syntax
> do you prefer?
>
>   // brace style
>   $x =3D "Hello"
>     |> {strtoupper($0)}
>     |> { $0 . "world" }
>     |> {strrev($0)};
>
>   // fn style
>   $x =3D "Hello"
>     |> fn($x) =3D> strtoupper($x)}
>     |> fn($x) =3D> $x . "world"
>     |> fn($x) =3D> strrev($0);
>
>   // caret style
>   $x =3D "Hello"
>     |> ^($x) =3D> strtoupper($x)}
>     |> ^($x) =3D> $x . "world"
>     |> ^($x) =3D> strrev($0);
>
> I included these two styles because they are the most promising versions
> from the arrow functions discussions. I think my preferred order is the o=
ne
> I wrote them in. The brace style is concise, nicely delimits the
> expression, and seems the clearest for me to read because the symbols don=
't
> dominate. The fn style seems nicer than caret which has too many symbols =
in
> close proximity for my taste.
>
> Community thoughts? Which short closure style pairs the nicest with the
> pipe operator?
>



--=20
regards / pozdrawiam,
--
Micha=C5=82 Brzuchalski
about.me/brzuchal
brzuchalski.com

--94eb2c09c3028c34d6055a50aaec--