Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94620
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.214.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <71557808-5718-0406-3df9-830bc2e03006@gmail.com>
References: <CAESVnVoBrtfWGF-Be+uXWwLNO3=JzuLBXyhW0Dpo-NvoskofQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <71557808-5718-0406-3df9-830bc2e03006@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:28:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAESVnVosKc=-yfF3oAP3Oo9Z4F9_Fcv9Nu12S6SOPWykO6ZX5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Pipe Operator v2
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/07/2016 00:42, 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.
>
> It looks like the examples are all still function calls. Could you clarify
> what expressions would be acceptable on the right-hand side?
>
Any non-terminal expression.

> In particular, can I assign to a variable at the end of the pipe?
>
> foo() |> bar($$) |> $result = $$;
>
Sure.  ($result = $$) is an expression which returns the assigned
value, so it's a valid non-terminal.

$alsoResult = foo() |> bar($$) |> $result = $$;
var_dump($alsoResult === $result); // bool(true)

> As discussed before, I think pipes would be most useful if values could
> "exit on the right". For which I would also like to be able to do this:
>
> foo() |> bar($$) |> return $$;
>
Are you picturing the return statement returning from the current
function? Or "returning" from the current pipe chain?

I think you mean the former, in which case I'd ask how that'd better/worse than:

return foo() |> bar($$);

> (Or, as discussed, special syntax for one or both of these.)
>
As above, I don't think special syntax adds anything for either of these cases.

-Sara