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
26 matches
Mail list logo
