Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130057
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------7yqQdVhGolJtelmcg0003Nco"
Message-ID: <d76cce04-2261-4220-a0db-f6b83b5c0ea0@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2026 22:39:54 +0700
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pipe to return
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
References: <53c17181-caa4-41a3-b4ab-93069e6bb47b@gmail.com>
 <7351ad2ea062a074a94454257a241049@bastelstu.be>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <7351ad2ea062a074a94454257a241049@bastelstu.be>
From: vadim.dvorovenko@gmail.com (Vadim Dvorovenko)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------7yqQdVhGolJtelmcg0003Nco
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

03.02.2026 22:13, Tim Düsterhus:
> That said, I agree with the others that I find the proposal a step 
> backwards in terms of readability. Having the `return` at the start of 
> the line is a clear indicator that the function ends there and it is 
> only a “single bit” of information I have to keep in mind while I 
> continue reading until I find the semicolon ending the statement. It 
> is also consistent with how assignments - the other primary use case 
> for pipes - start with the target variable and the equals before the 
> “pipe expression”. I think it would not be wrong to think of `return` 
> as “assigning to the return value”. 

Some time ago, I raised dicussion 
(https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128141) of using pipes for 
assignment as well, you also took part in that discussion. Currently, i 
started with the RFC for `return` because it's simplest, to illustrate 
main cognitive problem. By the way, returning is something that can not 
be implemented function like assign_to.

The main idea is that the pipe operator's main drawback is that it 
changes the usual reading direction. Function composition via + doesn't 
have this drawback. Maybe if function composition had been implemented 
earlier, the pipe operator wouldn't have been adopted. Now the pipe 
operator is part of the language, and I'm just trying to expand its use 
cases to write more intuitive and native-language-like code.

Look, even simple statements like `return $x |> strlen(...);` may be 
confusing, if you were not familiar with the pipe operator before, 
because you do not understand, if you should stop after `return $x` or 
not. On the other side `$x |> strlen(...) |> return` is more intuitive 
in this way, even if you see |> for the first time, reading this line 
you understand, that it has two actions, defined by arrows, and it is 
some sort of data transfer.

Even though you know `|>` is called a pipe operator, the `return $x |> 
strlen(...);` expression doesn't show how the data is flowing through 
the pipes. Something like `return strlen(...) <| $x` would be much more 
expressive in this sense. I had an idea to bring an RFC for the pipe 
operator to the left instead of this. But i chose not to invent a new 
operator, but simply to expand the grammatical possibilities of using an 
existing one.
--------------7yqQdVhGolJtelmcg0003Nco
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">03.02.2026 22:13, Tim Düsterhus:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:7351ad2ea062a074a94454257a241049@bastelstu.be">That
      said, I agree with the others that I find the proposal a step
      backwards in terms of readability. Having the `return` at the
      start of the line is a clear indicator that the function ends
      there and it is only a “single bit” of information I have to keep
      in mind while I continue reading until I find the semicolon ending
      the statement. It is also consistent with how assignments - the
      other primary use case for pipes - start with the target variable
      and the equals before the “pipe expression”. I think it would not
      be wrong to think of `return` as “assigning to the return value”. </blockquote>
    <p>Some time ago, I raised dicussion
      (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128141">https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128141</a>) of using pipes for
      assignment as well, you also took part in that discussion.
      Currently, i started with the RFC for `return` because it's
      simplest, to illustrate main cognitive problem. By the way,
      returning is something that can not be implemented function like
      assign_to.</p>
    <div class="QmZWSe">
      <div class="DHcWmd">The main idea is that the pipe operator's main
        drawback is that it changes the usual reading direction.
        Function composition via + doesn't have this drawback. Maybe if
        function composition had been implemented earlier, the pipe
        operator wouldn't have been adopted. Now the pipe operator is
        part of the language, and I'm just trying to expand its use
        cases to write more intuitive and native-language-like code.</div>
      <div class="DHcWmd"><br>
      </div>
      <div class="DHcWmd">Look, even simple statements like `return $x
        |&gt; strlen(...);` may be confusing, if you were not familiar
        with the pipe operator before, because you do not understand, if
        you should stop after `return $x` or not. On the other side `$x
        |&gt; strlen(...) |&gt; return` is more intuitive in this way,
        even if you see |&gt; for the first time, reading this line you
        understand, that it has two actions, defined by arrows, and it
        is some sort of data transfer.</div>
      <div class="DHcWmd"><br>
      </div>
      <div class="DHcWmd">Even though you know `|&gt;` is called a pipe
        operator, the `return $x |&gt; strlen(...);` expression doesn't
        show how the data is flowing through the pipes. Something like
        `return strlen(...) &lt;| $x` would be much more expressive in
        this sense. I had an idea to bring an RFC for the pipe operator
        to the left instead of this. But i chose not to invent a new
        operator, but simply to expand the grammatical possibilities of
        using an existing one.</div>
    </div>
  </body>
</html>

--------------7yqQdVhGolJtelmcg0003Nco--