Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120830
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8055b366-32f1-4d2c-85d0-0cf665e6c8d3@app.fastmail.com>
References: <CAOfzkkxrQOje274RMUW8kv13vBmtNSNd_D9Bq_SJeDEBVA8i7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJpLVh1hhd=zxSz+T4eZdd7eBD-40muU81eFwhmh3e0n7VGwyQ@mail.gmail.com> <8055b366-32f1-4d2c-85d0-0cf665e6c8d3@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 21:07:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJpLVh2t5Y7CzYTJZxLViCYpgncuJg3i4v==q1gye1m-iR4QPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: Karoly Negyesi <karoly@negyesi.net>, 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: olleharstedt@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olle_H=C3=A4rstedt?=)

2023-07-17 18:58 GMT+02:00, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>:
> 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
>>> failed.
>>>
>>> The discussion on https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/7214 is very
>>> short.
>>>
>>> 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 weekl=
y
>>> 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 mad=
e
> it a bit less compelling.
> 2. It was close to the RFC deadline, and it seems people get squeamish
> around 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
> design.
> 4. Arguments that it can be done in user space, which is not true, as I h=
ave
> a user-space implementation and it's comparatively cumbersome and definit=
ely
> 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 described=
 a
> Monad. :-)  It's literally "contextually-sensitive func concatenation."  =
A
> monadic bind operator would be harder to do with PHP's weaker type system=
,
> but there are ways it could be done.

Mm I don't really agree with that, I think monads make sense only in
languages which support them syntactically. A Pipe class is a very
straight-forward construction, and the blog posts I've read about
monads in PHP don't look pretty at all; lots of syntactic noise going
on. But that's another discussion... :)

Olle