Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129997
Message-ID: <36ac22c4-0166-4e5b-b18b-5f64430efb09@varteg.nz>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 10:58:36 +1300
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pipe to return
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <53c17181-caa4-41a3-b4ab-93069e6bb47b@gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <53c17181-caa4-41a3-b4ab-93069e6bb47b@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: weedpacket@varteg.nz (Morgan)

On 2026-01-31 18:52, Vadim Dvorovenko wrote:
> Introducing Pipe to return RFC
> 
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pipe_to_return
> 
> In short, RFC proposes piping expression result to `return` to be used 
> together with pipe operator to reduce cognitive load
> 
> "Hello World" |> strlen <http://www.php.net/strlen>(...) |> return;
> 
> --
> 
> Vadim Dvorovenko
> 

I'm wondering how this would relate to the function composition 
operator, noted in the follow-up RFC.
Basically, would "return" make sense at the end of a function 
composition chain, and what sense would that be?

When $x |> f1(...) |> f2(...) |> f3(...);
is equivalent to (f1(...) + f2(...) + f3(...))($x);
[Aside: personally I find the suggested order of arguments backwards 
from every other instance of function composition I've encountered, but 
I suppose I could learn to live with it. But that's another subject.]

and $c = f1(...) + f2(...) + f3(...);
is equivalent to $c = fn($x) => ($x |> f1(...) |> f2(...) |> f3(...));

what happens when "f3(...)" is "return"? The intended behaviour is given 
for the first case but not for the others (not even the fourth, which is 
still the pipe operator).