On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 2:35 AM Larry Garfield
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020, at 11:06 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> > > Happy with the revival, and I do want to underline the "Future Work"
> > > section about Partial Functions. PF will
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020, at 11:06 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> > Happy with the revival, and I do want to underline the "Future Work"
> > section about Partial Functions. PF will make this version of pipes 100%
> > more readable and fluent, and
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:32 PM Bruce Weirdan wrote:
>
> Haskell has & operator in Data.Function module which is exact equivalent of
> the proposed feature.
> Link:
> https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.8.0.0/docs/Data-Function.html#g:2
> Example:
Haskell has & operator in Data.Function module which is exact equivalent of
the proposed feature.
Link:
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.8.0.0/docs/Data-Function.html#g:2
Example: https://repl.it/repls/KindLightsalmonApplicationserver
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:09 PM Larry Garfield
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020, at 3:25 AM, Guilliam Xavier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:44 PM Larry Garfield wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020, at 11:20 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > > Just a small pedantry note - in a comparison section, the RFC compares
> > > this syntax to function
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:44 PM Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020, at 11:20 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > Just a small pedantry note - in a comparison section, the RFC compares
> > this syntax to function composition. But this is not function
> > composition. This is a syntax
Replying to a couple of people at once.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020, at 11:06 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:39 PM Ben Ramsey wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 2020, at 20:38, Larry Garfield
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been commenting on other RFCs enough lately that I should probably
>
Hey Larry,
This looks good!
One question arises: how do exception traces look like, if they happen
mid-pipe? Is the pipe effectively attaching stack frames to the entire
thing, or is it flattening the trace?
Greets,
Marco Pivetta
http://twitter.com/Ocramius
http://ocramius.github.com/
On
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:39 AM Larry Garfield
wrote:
> Hello fine people of Internals!
>
> I've been commenting on other RFCs enough lately that I should probably
> put myself through the wringer, too. I therefore offer this RFC to add a
> function pipe operator, as seen in a number of other
Hi!
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pipe-operator-v2
Just a small pedantry note - in a comparison section, the RFC compares
this syntax to function composition. But this is not function
composition. This is a syntax sugar for calling two functions one after
another, not operator that produces a
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:39 PM Ben Ramsey wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 2020, at 20:38, Larry Garfield
> wrote:
> >
> > I've been commenting on other RFCs enough lately that I should probably
> put myself through the wringer, too. I therefore offer this RFC to add a
> function pipe operator, as seen
A questions and a comment:
1. How will XDEBUG handle a multiline construct such as this? Will it treat as
one expression, or allow breakpoints at each "link" in the pipe chain?
Maybe this is a better question for Derek Rethans?
2. The exclusive use of callable seems problematic prior to an
> On Apr 20, 2020, at 20:38, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> Hello fine people of Internals!
>
> I've been commenting on other RFCs enough lately that I should probably put
> myself through the wringer, too. I therefore offer this RFC to add a
> function pipe operator, as seen in a number of other
Hello fine people of Internals!
I've been commenting on other RFCs enough lately that I should probably put
myself through the wringer, too. I therefore offer this RFC to add a function
pipe operator, as seen in a number of other languages:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pipe-operator-v2
A patch
14 matches
Mail list logo
