2017-09-28 21:07 GMT+02:00 Levi Morrison <le...@php.net>:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Sara Golemon <poll...@php.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > > It'd be also nice then if we could have some syntax that allowed us to
> > > refer to functions/methods as callables - mostly for the benefit of the
> > > code readers and IDEs. I.e. you can do "hello" |> "strtoupper" and it's
> > > fine but it is not at all intuitive what you're doing sending one
> string
> > > into another. Same with "hello" |> [$this, 'bar']. Now, if we could do
> > > something like this:
> > > "hello" |> &{strtoupper}
> > > "hello" |> &{$this->bar}
> > >
> > Super-hacky implementation (that I wouldn't want to merge, but it
> > shows the syntax at work).
> >
> > https://github.com/php/php-src/compare/master...sgolemon:lambda
> > which provides a form of both short-closures and partial functions.
> >
> > Combined with also-super-hacky pipe diff from earlier, you get:
> >
> > $x = "Hello"
> > |> &{strtoupper($0)}
> > |> &{ $0 . "world" }
> > |> &{strrev($0)};
> >
> > var_dump($x);
> > // string(10) "dlrowOLLEH"
> >
> > -Sara
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
>
> By the way the `&` is not required. When experimenting with possible short
> closure syntax I created an implementation for `{}` to make sure it was
> possible:
>
> $x = "Hello"
> |> {strtoupper($0)}
> |> { $0 . "world" }
> |> {strrev($0)};
>
> If people would prefer that syntax for short-closures then that's fine by
> me. If we made it this concise there wouldn't be a need for a `$$` proposal
> anyway.
>
I love this syntax with braces, I wanted to do like it in
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-closures
but only for replacement of string or array callables as closures.
>
> ---
>
> My impression from the community is that the pipe operator is desirable but
> not if it encourages string or array callables. In that vein which syntax
> do you prefer?
>
> // brace style
> $x = "Hello"
> |> {strtoupper($0)}
> |> { $0 . "world" }
> |> {strrev($0)};
>
> // fn style
> $x = "Hello"
> |> fn($x) => strtoupper($x)}
> |> fn($x) => $x . "world"
> |> fn($x) => strrev($0);
>
> // caret style
> $x = "Hello"
> |> ^($x) => strtoupper($x)}
> |> ^($x) => $x . "world"
> |> ^($x) => strrev($0);
>
> I included these two styles because they are the most promising versions
> from the arrow functions discussions. I think my preferred order is the one
> I wrote them in. The brace style is concise, nicely delimits the
> expression, and seems the clearest for me to read because the symbols don't
> dominate. The fn style seems nicer than caret which has too many symbols in
> close proximity for my taste.
>
> Community thoughts? Which short closure style pairs the nicest with the
> pipe operator?
>
--
regards / pozdrawiam,
--
Michał Brzuchalski
about.me/brzuchal
brzuchalski.com
