Re: [PHP-DEV] [Vote] Pipe operator v2

2021-07-20 Thread Olle Härstedt
2021-07-20 11:12 GMT+02:00, Marco Pivetta : > Hey Larry, > > On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 6:00 PM Larry Garfield > wrote: > >> Hi Marco. Thank you for your explanation, even if I naturally disagree. >> >> Out of curiosity, what sort of additional >> power/capability/flexibility/etc. would, in your

Re: [PHP-DEV] [Vote] Pipe operator v2

2021-07-20 Thread Marco Pivetta
Hey Larry, On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 6:00 PM Larry Garfield wrote: > Hi Marco. Thank you for your explanation, even if I naturally disagree. > > Out of curiosity, what sort of additional > power/capability/flexibility/etc. would, in your mind, justify pipe or > similar being a native feature?

Re: [PHP-DEV] [Vote] Pipe operator v2

2021-07-17 Thread Levi Morrison via internals
> Pol Dellaiera (https://github.com/drupol) has done a lot of work around > this stuff, specifically the type inference bit, in > https://github.com/loophp/combinator , so I see hope to get better types at > a later stage. I don't see a pipe combinator in there, but maybe I can't see it through

Re: [PHP-DEV] [Vote] Pipe operator v2

2021-07-17 Thread Larry Garfield
On Sat, Jul 17, 2021, at 9:48 AM, Marco Pivetta wrote: > Hey Larry, > > I just voted "NO" on this: it took me a long time to decide, because I've > been vouching for pipe-alike operators myself for a while. > > The reason why I voted "no" is that this is feasible with a `pipe(callable > $first,

Re: [PHP-DEV] [Vote] Pipe operator v2

2021-07-17 Thread Marco Pivetta
Hey Larry, I just voted "NO" on this: it took me a long time to decide, because I've been vouching for pipe-alike operators myself for a while. The reason why I voted "no" is that this is feasible with a `pipe(callable $first, callable ...$piped)` function, without having to add syntax/AST for

Re: [PHP-DEV] [Vote] Pipe operator v2

2021-07-07 Thread Larry Garfield
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, at 6:54 PM, Bob Weinand wrote: > Hey Larry, > > there's still ongoing discussion on the semantics, and mirroring > implementation defined semantics from the implementation into the RFC > is not the way to go. The RFC should discuss reasons of why semantics > were chosen

Re: [PHP-DEV] [Vote] Pipe operator v2

2021-07-06 Thread Bob Weinand
Hey Larry, there's still ongoing discussion on the semantics, and mirroring implementation defined semantics from the implementation into the RFC is not the way to go. The RFC should discuss reasons of why semantics were chosen and the implementation then be decided upon it. Describing it as

[PHP-DEV] [Vote] Pipe operator v2

2021-07-06 Thread Larry Garfield
I have opened the vote on the Pipe operator RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pipe-operator-v2 The vote will close on 20 July. -- Larry Garfield la...@garfieldtech.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php