Just to clarify,
I said it didn't look like it could be a pure AST implementation, and that
it looks like you may need one additional instruction.
It does look that way to me - if only to throw a sensible error
specifically for pipes but also because it makes the imposition of specific
behaviour
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, at 11:05 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021, at 9:12 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, at 2:00 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > > Hi folks. Me again.
> > >
> > > A year ago, I posted an RFC for a pipe operator, |>, aka function
> > > concatenation.
On Sat, Jul 3, 2021, at 9:12 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, at 2:00 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > Hi folks. Me again.
> >
> > A year ago, I posted an RFC for a pipe operator, |>, aka function
> > concatenation. At the time, the main thrust of the feedback was "cool,
> > like,
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, at 2:18 AM, Olle Härstedt wrote:
> 2021-07-04 4:12 GMT+02:00, Larry Garfield :
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, at 2:00 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> >> Hi folks. Me again.
> >>
> >> A year ago, I posted an RFC for a pipe operator, |>, aka function
> >> concatenation. At the time, the m
2021-07-04 4:12 GMT+02:00, Larry Garfield :
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, at 2:00 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> Hi folks. Me again.
>>
>> A year ago, I posted an RFC for a pipe operator, |>, aka function
>> concatenation. At the time, the main thrust of the feedback was "cool,
>> like, but we need partial
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, at 2:00 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> Hi folks. Me again.
>
> A year ago, I posted an RFC for a pipe operator, |>, aka function
> concatenation. At the time, the main thrust of the feedback was "cool,
> like, but we need partial function application first so that the syntax
2021-06-29 0:54 GMT+02:00, Larry Garfield :
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 5:30 PM, Olle Härstedt wrote:
>
>> Mm. Assoc arrays are by now known to be not so good. I hope...
>
> There are millions of PHP sites build on anonymous arrays today.
>
>> OCaml is strictly evaluated, not lazy like Haskell. So t
> I talked with Joe about this, and the answer is no. Most of the complexity
> comes from the initial "this is a function call, oops no, it's a partial
> call so we switch to doing that instead", which ends up interacting with the
> engine in a lot of different places. Once you've done that, supp
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 5:30 PM, Olle Härstedt wrote:
> Mm. Assoc arrays are by now known to be not so good. I hope...
There are millions of PHP sites build on anonymous arrays today.
> OCaml is strictly evaluated, not lazy like Haskell. So the order might
> matter, dunno, I don't use this oper
2021-06-29 0:06 GMT+02:00, Rowan Tommins :
> On 28/06/2021 21:28, Olle Härstedt wrote:
>> Sorry for hijacking the thread, but are there no other alternatives,
>> really? Just brainstorming:
>>
>> 1) Setting to silence the warning.
>
>
> Just to reiterate: in PHP 8.0, an undefined constant is not a
2021-06-28 23:36 GMT+02:00, Larry Garfield :
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 3:42 PM, Olle Härstedt wrote:
>> 2021-06-28 22:12 GMT+02:00, Larry Garfield :
>> > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 3:04 PM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
>> >> On 28/06/2021 20:25, Olle Härstedt wrote:
>> >> > Usage (ignoring the pesky undefin
On 28/06/2021 21:28, Olle Härstedt wrote:
Sorry for hijacking the thread, but are there no other alternatives,
really? Just brainstorming:
1) Setting to silence the warning.
Just to reiterate: in PHP 8.0, an undefined constant is not a warning,
it's an error. My apologies to code golfers: yo
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 3:42 PM, Olle Härstedt wrote:
> 2021-06-28 22:12 GMT+02:00, Larry Garfield :
> > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 3:04 PM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
> >> On 28/06/2021 20:25, Olle Härstedt wrote:
> >> > Usage (ignoring the pesky undefined constant warnings ><):
> >>
> >>
> >> Unfortunat
2021-06-28 22:12 GMT+02:00, Larry Garfield :
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 3:04 PM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
>> On 28/06/2021 20:25, Olle Härstedt wrote:
>> > Usage (ignoring the pesky undefined constant warnings ><):
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, you can't ignore those warnings; not least because
>> they're fa
2021-06-28 22:04 GMT+02:00, Rowan Tommins :
> On 28/06/2021 20:25, Olle Härstedt wrote:
>> Usage (ignoring the pesky undefined constant warnings ><):
>
>
> Unfortunately, you can't ignore those warnings; not least because
> they're fatal errors in PHP 8, as they frankly should have been in PHP 3.
>
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 3:04 PM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
> On 28/06/2021 20:25, Olle Härstedt wrote:
> > Usage (ignoring the pesky undefined constant warnings ><):
>
>
> Unfortunately, you can't ignore those warnings; not least because
> they're fatal errors in PHP 8, as they frankly should have b
On 28/06/2021 20:25, Olle Härstedt wrote:
Usage (ignoring the pesky undefined constant warnings ><):
Unfortunately, you can't ignore those warnings; not least because
they're fatal errors in PHP 8, as they frankly should have been in PHP 3.
You can use our current ugly callable syntax (stri
2021-06-07 21:00 GMT+02:00, Larry Garfield :
> Hi folks. Me again.
>
> A year ago, I posted an RFC for a pipe operator, |>, aka function
> concatenation. At the time, the main thrust of the feedback was "cool,
> like, but we need partial function application first so that the syntax for
> callable
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 4:09 PM Larry Garfield
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021, at 5:41 AM, Guilliam Xavier wrote:
>
> > you forgot to update one
> > `explode(?)` to `str_split(?)`, and also, the first `fn($v) =>
> > 'strtoupper'` should be just `'strtoupper'`.
>
> I deliberately made that example ex
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021, at 5:41 AM, Guilliam Xavier wrote:
> > Hm. You're right. It used to, but it's been a very long time since
> > explode() allowed an empty split, apparently. I updated the example to use
> > str_split, which is what I'd intended to do in this case. Thanks.
> >
>
> Are you t
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 12:09 AM Larry Garfield
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, at 4:00 PM, Eugene Leonovich wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 9:03 PM Larry Garfield
> > wrote:
> >
> > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pipe-operator-v2
> > >
> > FTR, there are several typos in the "Hello World" examp
> On Jun 7, 2021, at 9:39 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, at 8:09 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2021, at 3:00 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi folks. Me again.
>>>
>>> A year ago, I posted an RFC for a pipe operator, |>, aka function
>>> concatenation. At
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, at 8:09 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 2021, at 3:00 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks. Me again.
> >
> > A year ago, I posted an RFC for a pipe operator, |>, aka function
> > concatenation. At the time, the main thrust of the feedback was "cool,
> > l
> On Jun 7, 2021, at 3:00 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> Hi folks. Me again.
>
> A year ago, I posted an RFC for a pipe operator, |>, aka function
> concatenation. At the time, the main thrust of the feedback was "cool, like,
> but we need partial function application first so that the synt
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, at 4:00 PM, Eugene Leonovich wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 9:03 PM Larry Garfield
> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks. Me again.
> >
> > A year ago, I posted an RFC for a pipe operator, |>, aka function
> > concatenation. At the time, the main thrust of the feedback was "cool,
> > lik
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 9:03 PM Larry Garfield
wrote:
> Hi folks. Me again.
>
> A year ago, I posted an RFC for a pipe operator, |>, aka function
> concatenation. At the time, the main thrust of the feedback was "cool,
> like, but we need partial function application first so that the syntax for
Hi folks. Me again.
A year ago, I posted an RFC for a pipe operator, |>, aka function
concatenation. At the time, the main thrust of the feedback was "cool, like,
but we need partial function application first so that the syntax for callables
isn't so crappy."
The PFA RFC is winding down now
27 matches
Mail list logo
