On Mon, Jul 20, 2026, at 11:38 AM, Bob Weinand wrote: > Hey Caleb, > >> Am 20.07.2026 um 04:11 schrieb Larry Garfield <[email protected]>: >> >> Impressively, I think this explanation stated my position better than I >> could. :-) Yes, I am in favor of pushing PHP in a more-functional, >> mostly-immutable direction (without going all the way to pathological purity >> like in Haskell). A variant of pipe that is intrinsically built on mutable >> variables goes against the intent. Yes, PHP is not an inherently immutable >> language today, but you can easily use it that way if you're careful and >> know where the edges are where you shouldn't. >> >> I think the above description has actually pushed me over into the No >> category on this RFC. (Which doesn't mean I'm necessarily in favor of the >> alternate |>= proposal. I'm still pondering that one.) >> >> I do agree that some longer-term planning around what alternate pipe forms >> make sense is wise, and a conversation I'm open to having. But not for a >> few weeks, as we should be focused on 8.6 at the moment, and none of these >> will make it into 8.6. >> >> --Larry Garfield > > sorry that you had to read this mail; Larry often has ideas that don't > work well in practice - and then core devs have to shoot this down. > Please just ignore this. > > Bob
Bob, this is an extremely inappropriate email to send. All sorts of people disagree with all sorts of proposals for all sorts of reasons. All sorts of people "often have ideas that won't work well in practice." That's the whole point of a list discussion: To let those differences shake out and find the stuff that does work that people can agree on. Singling out one person (who has been involved in several successful RFCs) and implying that person is some sort of idea-troll to be specifically ignored is grossly inappropriate, and I would expect better of someone of your stature. --Larry Garfield
