Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93027
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain opensides.be designates 195.154.20.141 as permitted sender)
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 04:45:46 +0200
Message-ID: <1921055.DcKiMG99xv@mcmic-probook>
Organization: OpenSides
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuQbsydVkU4xG14STs=8pBYVbMtacA-sNfuEe4qh+xbM0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAESVnVpa5j=fagr-wm5+DzKKX=wzTN1p8+Kv3-KtGpuyH51b0A@mail.gmail.com> <5723F4C4.6080207@garfieldtech.com> <CA+kxMuQbsydVkU4xG14STs=8pBYVbMtacA-sNfuEe4qh+xbM0Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pipe Operator
From: come@opensides.be (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=F4me?= Chilliet)

Le dimanche 1 mai 2016, 00:20:45 Dan Ackroyd a =E9crit :
> However, it is not the proposed new syntax that makes the code more
> readable - it is solely due to writing it in the correct order that
> makes the code more readable. This can be done using current PHP
> syntax, so that the code is:
>=20
> $dirEntries =3D scandir($arg);
> $files      =3D array_filter($filesAndDirectories, function($x) { ret=
urn
> $x !=3D=3D '.' && $x !=3D '..'; });
> $fullPaths  =3D array_map(function ($x) use ($arg) { return $arg . '/=
' .
> $x; }, $files)
> $fileInfo   =3D getFileArg($fullPaths);
> $ret        =3D array_merge($ret, $fileListInfo);
>=20
> Using the proposed new syntax to rewrite it without the intermediate
> variables like this.
>=20
> $ret =3D scandir($arg)
>     |> array_filter($$, function($x) { return $x !=3D=3D '.' && $x !=3D=
 '..'; })
>     |> array_map(function ($x) use ($arg) { return $arg . '/' . $x; }=
, $$)
>     |> getFileArg($$)
>     |> array_merge($ret, $$);
>=20
> Does not now show a marked improvement in readability.

Yeah, then why is the first code you wrote containing errors and not th=
e second one?
I have to read carefully the first one to see that the variables used i=
n the code are not the same one returned from the line above.
There is no need for this in the second one which is much clearer, each=
 call reuses the return from the function above.

I had no opinion on this RFC until people started to explain using 100 =
variables for such simple things is the best solution.