Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120829
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-531-gfdfa13a06d-fm-20230703.001-gfdfa13a0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8055b366-32f1-4d2c-85d0-0cf665e6c8d3@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJpLVh1hhd=zxSz+T4eZdd7eBD-40muU81eFwhmh3e0n7VGwyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOfzkkxrQOje274RMUW8kv13vBmtNSNd_D9Bq_SJeDEBVA8i7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJpLVh1hhd=zxSz+T4eZdd7eBD-40muU81eFwhmh3e0n7VGwyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:58:55 +0000
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Olle_H=C3=A4rstedt?= <olleharstedt@gmail.com>,
 "Karoly Negyesi" <karoly@negyesi.net>
Cc: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] pipes, scalar objects and on?
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, at 2:57 PM, Olle H=C3=A4rstedt wrote:
> 2023-07-17 14:25 GMT+02:00, Karoly Negyesi <karoly@negyesi.net>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tried to read on why the pipe RFC failed but by and large I also fa=
iled.
>>
>> The discussion on https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/7214 is very sh=
ort.
>>
>> https://externals.io/message/114770 is not so short but it seems not =
to
>> cover the latest version which uses first class functions?
>>
>> Could someone please give me a summary why it failed? I really would =
like
>> to see it succeed :) I am writing code if not daily but certainly wee=
kly
>> that certainly looks like a pipeline.
>
> The pipe RFC was kinda forced in before a deadline, no?
>
> My own two cents:
>
> * It's trivial to implement a pipe() function or a Pipe class
> * A Pipe class is better than both a function and built-in operator,
> since it can be configured with custom behaviour, e.g. stop or throw
> on empty payload, or repeat on a collection, or even with parallelism
> or concurrency
> * If I had voting rights, I'd vote in favor in a pipe operator :)

From my recollection, there were a couple of things involved.

1. It was intended to pair with the PFA RFC, which didn't pass, which ma=
de it a bit less compelling.
2. It was close to the RFC deadline, and it seems people get squeamish a=
round that.
3. Some folks wanted Hack-style pipes instead of the pipes used by every=
 other language with pipes. I've written before on why that's a worse de=
sign.
4. Arguments that it can be done in user space, which is not true, as I =
have a user-space implementation and it's comparatively cumbersome and d=
efinitely slower than a native operator would be.
5. General "meh" attitude on FP features in general from some people.

Side note to Olle: If you want a customizable pipe, you've just describe=
d a Monad. :-)  It's literally "contextually-sensitive func concatenatio=
n."  A monadic bind operator would be harder to do with PHP's weaker typ=
e system, but there are ways it could be done.

I'd like to bring the Pipes RFC back if I thought there was a reasonable=
 potential for it to pass this time.  I would use the crap out of it mys=
elf.  Though I've also since decided that we do need a straight up func =
concat operator as well.  (I previously thought one would be sufficient,=
 but in practice I think we do want both.)

--Larry Garfield