On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Ryan Pallas <derokor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19/01/2017 22:17, Ryan Pallas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> When you say assert the right hand side is callable, does that mean to
>>> call an object method, you would do [$obj, 'method']? What about
>>> functions,
>>> is it just the name like $str |> trim, or is it $str |> trim()?
>>>
>>
>> This is a good point. The difference between the pipe operator as proposed
>> by Sara and the combination of two separate operators is that in Sara's
>> proposal you'd always write this:
>>
>> $str |> trim($$)
>>
>> But in Levi's proposal as I understand it, the right-hand side is not
>> syntax, it's just constrained to be callable, so the simpler (but rather
>> ugly) form would be:
>>
>> $str |> 'trim'
>>
>
> See I don't like that at all, I hate having to put functions/methods in
> strings, as find usages and refactor tools generally don't find the
> strings. But sometimes I have to yield my preference to those who outrank
> me (aka those with voting power)
While this would be permitted:
$str |> 'trim'
So would:
$str |> trim($$)
I empathize that you don't like string-name callables (I really don't
like them either) but this RFC helps avoid the string if you want to.
Consider
// without my proposal:
array_map('trim', $input)
// with it:
array_map(trim($$), $input)
Which makes a bigger difference for namespaced functions:
// without my proposal:
array_map('namespaced\func\map', $input)
// with it (assuming you are in the correct namespace or
// did `use function namespaced\func\map`:
array_map(map($$), $input)
So to summarize, the right-hand-side of `|>` being callable doesn't
mean you "have to" put it in a string; you can pair it with `$$` to
avoid that.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
