On Fri, Feb 7, 2025, at 05:57, Larry Garfield wrote: > Hi folks. A few years ago I posted an RFC for a pipe operator, as seen in > many other languages. At the time it didn't pass, in no small part because > the implementation was a bit shaky and it was right before freeze. > Nonetheless, there are now even more (bad) user-space implementations in the > wild, as it gets brought up frequently in "what do you want in PHP?" threads > (though nowhere near generics or better async, of course), so it seems clear > there is demand in the market for it. > > It is now back with a better implementation (many thanks to Ilija for his > help and guidance in that), and it's nowhere close to freeze, so here we go > again: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pipe-operator-v3 > > Of particular note, since the last RFC I have concluded that a compose > operator is a necessary complement to a pipe operator. However, it's also > going to be notably more work, and the two operators don't actually interact > at all at the code level, so since people keep saying "Small RFCs!", here's a > small RFC. :-) > > -- > Larry Garfield > la...@garfieldtech.com >
Hey Larry, Maybe I missed it, but what happens here? [1,2] |> add(…) Is the array deconstructed or passed as-is? Further, if it is passed as-is (my gut is telling me it will be), then what is the error? Is it the normal “missing second parameter when calling add()” error or a new error specific to pipes? If it is passed as-is, would the following be legal? …[1,2] |> add(…) — Rob
