Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92989
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5724C9A7.5080504@fleshgrinder.com>
References: <CAESVnVpa5j=fagr-wm5+DzKKX=wzTN1p8+Kv3-KtGpuyH51b0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ea990da-1fe7-256c-4e08-0b30715c8e8a@gmail.com>
	<CADyq6sLYYmf5VyhjhgX3Fw+KmRfzrJN442y8gs6gqrhhzwqLAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5724C9A7.5080504@fleshgrinder.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 17:23:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CADyq6s+ZUgd4K6thcWBwW2twkwsk+PJncuoO4SOtYDEwekjM+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c372dc933d950531b55698
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pipe Operator
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--001a11c372dc933d950531b55698
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

This feature has nothing to do with fluent interfaces, nor has their flaws.
The readability of piped processing for functional code is simply a
no-brainer here, and doesn't require any API changes in function signatures
either: it is not "a different way of doing the same thing".
On Apr 30, 2016 17:05, "Fleshgrinder" <php@fleshgrinder.com> wrote:

> On 4/30/2016 8:49 AM, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> > I think this is much more readable/clear than any event-driven or
> > procedural approach.
> > We know exactly what is going on, we will get clear stack traces (this
> > could need some fine-tuning of the current PR - I didn't try it out yet)
> > and we will be able to introduce intermediate steps with ease. In
> addition
> > to all that, this will ease reactive programming by a lot, as piping is a
> > natural fit for streams and all abstractions around streams.
> >
> > The syntax is also already effective in F# (you can write very expressive
> > and easy to understand code with it) and now also landed in Hack.
> >
> > I'd say +10 to this proposal :D
> >
>
> I am with Stanislav on this one or rather meh. It also goes against what
> you usually advocate: there should be only one way to achieve things (I
> remember your /fluent interface/ example very well). Unless you changed
> your mind regarding that. Hence, it is nice syntactic sugar but it does
> not allow us to solve problems that we cannot solve already.
>
> --
> Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
>
>

--001a11c372dc933d950531b55698--