Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94603
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain garfieldtech.com from 66.111.4.29 cause and error)
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAESVnVoBrtfWGF-Be+uXWwLNO3=JzuLBXyhW0Dpo-NvoskofQw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5786dd74-8a32-eb16-aec1-77b12d5af1c1@garfieldtech.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 23:50:31 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVoBrtfWGF-Be+uXWwLNO3=JzuLBXyhW0Dpo-NvoskofQw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Pipe Operator v2
From: larry@garfieldtech.com (Larry Garfield)

On 07/20/2016 07:42 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> With the branching of 7.1, and after some reflection on the previous
> feedback, I'd like to reopen discussion of the Pipe Operator RFC
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pipe-operator which I had previously put on
> hold.  I've changed much of the argument wording of the proposal, but
> not the substantive feature set.  If you still feel it's unworkable,
> I'd like to encourage you to respond with what you think would make it
> workable (if anything).  Thanks.
>
> -Sara


I am still generally in favor of this proposal.  Especially when dealing 
with nested array functions this operator would be a big boon to 
readability.


However, the introduction discusses fluent chained methods of objects, 
and states " This RFC aims to improve code readability by bringing 
fluent expressions to functional and OOP libraries not originally 
designed for the task."  The examples, however, all seem to be centered 
around procedural calls.  (A static method call is the same thing as a 
procedural function call in this respect.)  When dealing with methods on 
an object, it seems it wouldn't offer much.


This other recent discussion/proposal for a "Cascade" operator seems 
like it would handle the OOP/method case much better:


http://news.php.net/php.internals/94466


Note: I am not suggesting one is a substitute for the other; rather, 
that they are complementary by addressing different parts of the problem 
space, and the Pipe RFC should likely not emphasize OOP usage potential 
as I see not a great deal there.  I am still in favor of it, but let's 
not over-state its use cases.


PS: I am very disappointed that you chose to name the $$ token 
T_PIPE_VARIABLE and not T_BLINGBLING.


--Larry Garfield