Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <13476e3c-93d6-4c6f-be9e-24f46a5049fb@www.fastmail.com>
References: <d50eaa78-21c7-46e7-9da6-629ba5694d3f@www.fastmail.com>
 <CAJpLVh0Fo9odHeO_CoSxCKA+2dELhG7-H9BvY--tfd59q0iXhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b256ac45-e893-90b9-70ba-89fd326c1cf7@gmail.com> <43d612c0-7462-463a-9536-ed5b66d9ae1e@www.fastmail.com>
 <CAJpLVh1MUTi0b4HiHXEAfjeKvQXranwsdX9S8QagFYYEfn-9Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <bd6cabb6-339a-46ca-8d50-f595f951ad58@www.fastmail.com> <CAJpLVh1JXStoumLrLTJwA7ouvgkkBoot6yu-7f=LeLC6G5spDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <13476e3c-93d6-4c6f-be9e-24f46a5049fb@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:28:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJpLVh1aAa0L5NEW0MtL4P8OfyejXUuiO-SSdEQJQdSSSmXfuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pipe Operator, take 2
From: olleharstedt@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olle_H=C3=A4rstedt?=)

> I talked with Joe about this, and the answer is no.  Most of the complexity
> comes from the initial "this is a function call, oops no, it's a partial
> call so we switch to doing that instead", which ends up interacting with the
> engine in a lot of different places.  Once you've done that, supporting one
> placeholder or multiple, variadics or not, etc. is only a small incremental
> increase in complexity.

Hm, I was thinking more about the conceptual complexity, not the
implementation, but seems like the argument "cover all expected
use-cases" was used too. :) So no half-measures...

Thanks for your feedback.

Olle

>> > Overall, I really don't like the idea of special-casing pipes to change
>> > what
>> > symbol table gets looked up.
>>
>> Still wondering if this could be a per-file or per-library setting
>> somehow, to opt-in into pipe behaviour when so desired. Or rather, to
>> opt-in into this or that behaviour needed to do more idiomatic pipe.
>>
>> Here's one boilerplaty pipe:
>
> *snip*
>
> We're in the pipe thread here, not PFA. :-)  And really, you're solving the
> wrong problem.  Pipes are trivial.  They're only clunky because of PHP's
> lack of decent callable syntax.  PFA gives us that, but the engine makes the
> implementation more complex than it seems like at first glance.
>
> Trying to come up with complex workarounds to make pipes pretty without
> helping anything else is a fool's errand, especially when we have a working
> PFA RFC that's about to end voting.  (And right now is losing by a very slim
> margin, but could pass if a few people change their minds.)
>
> Aside from something like Nikita's ...-only function reference RFC, which
> only handles half the problem (it doesn't do anything to make multi-arg
> functions work with pipes at all), any other solution is going to end up
> reinventing PFA one way or another, or reinventing existing ugly user-space
> libraries. one way or another
>
> I've not yet decided if I'm going to bring pipes to a vote if PFA doesn't
> pass.  I'm tempted to, but it would require rewriting all the RFC text back
> to the uglier version without PFA, and yeah, it's not going to look as
> pretty.  And the main pushback a year ago when I first brought it up was
> "PFA first, please, so the callable syntax isn't ugly."  And... here we
> are.
>
> --Larry Garfield