Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93121
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ddcfc338-a2fb-a06f-36ef-30e105772779@gmail.com>
References: <CAESVnVpa5j=fagr-wm5+DzKKX=wzTN1p8+Kv3-KtGpuyH51b0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4fc01507-3d07-2309-a4e4-4cad7325249b@gmail.com> <AA.0D.03860.787F7275@pb1.pair.com>
 <CA+CPB82OUEzCQibp5YezVaT8PwOF6fXb2Fb39oKL5fPKwX-kRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb8bdb06-b9e5-7e02-3aa5-d54121b8eacb@fleshgrinder.com> <CAESVnVpFCN-cC1pyiZ+ApOneUagb9ncUfOHqhNtE+WQaBkH_TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <39071a01-a42c-0952-b3a8-b4769c79b56b@fleshgrinder.com> <CAESVnVpwbYdeENZ4CW1m8KiLSZv87x5TO3+72uYYR262rgYL3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <0ac3be89-6fb4-610a-ef89-0928f264f96c@fleshgrinder.com> <CAESVnVpBn2fpK-BQXj2261mTMG7ZUK1XwOS6jZn1wiYBEs61mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <71379db5-b7b8-78b3-ada5-eee34e6e22d6@fleshgrinder.com> <CAObuZdtS-gn3gT6L2bwshF4H9KzxZSaCsu41CYtyeT+=SOCSyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <a25612f2-fb09-c25e-ca30-daf850acaa96@fleshgrinder.com> <CAObuZduo2-mnZMbgKFEWN1=yxqgqh_8RCN7GSpCTYCNXVjWJ_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <fe837e8b-2a6e-516e-33f0-cfcca172d565@fleshgrinder.com> <CAGa2bXaKWu+WJ7unZ2TfG03KUYY3JyNG=FK3cUbR3PL244znyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ddcfc338-a2fb-a06f-36ef-30e105772779@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 08:25:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEU6NAeZ=81Tb-7oEJJ0=-uixzE+pON4UQEGOXJYZwPf_CEEsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>, "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb70e1aaca324053262df20
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pipe Operator
From: peter.e.lind@gmail.com (Peter Lind)

--047d7bb70e1aaca324053262df20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 9 May 2016 at 07:37, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > "|>" is just a building block for simpler coding. It could be used
> badly, but
> > it helps a lot. Procedural code could be much simpler and readable with
> "|>".
>
> I don't see how it helps anything. It just replaces clear variable names
> with cryptic sequences of characters with no intuitive meaning and magic
> semantics invented solely to save a few keystrokes. Moreover, it would
> only in one sole use case where functions always return a value that is
> immediately passed to the next one and is sole argument for it, and
> never produce errors or require any logic beyond calling them in a
> sequence on one value.
>
>
That seems to be a misrepresentation of the proposal - the $$ is needed
*because* there might be other parameters. As for sole use case - there are
many pieces of code that manipulate the return values of functions, step by
step.



> > "|>" version is much easier to read and write.
>
> Quite the opposite. It has completely unobvious syntax (what is $$? What
> is the value of $$? how I see this value if I need to debug this code?)
> and does not allow to do anything but making code more cryptic.
>

I have the feeling that if everyone involved *explicitly* prefixed their
opinions with "I think that", this would be a better and more fruitful
discussion. *You* think the syntax completely unobvious - that doesn't make
it so. Clearly others find it much easier to read.

Regards
Peter



-- 
CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind
LinkedIn: plind
Twitter: kafe15

--047d7bb70e1aaca324053262df20--