marco's avatar

Marco Aurélio Deleu

marco

Member since

1,079

Total Reputation

3

Total Arguments

12

Total Votes for Arguments

Arguments and votes

1

This is another RFC that focuses on the Developer Experience of PHP and gets shutdown by internals because of bikeshedding or lack of interest in doing things for the sake of improving DX. The syntax allows for clear and concise code and goes hand-in-hand with First-party callable and short arrow functions. There aren't many things that can be expressed in a syntax, but this one can replace entire PHP libraries (kind of similar to PHP Enum) and make the entire pipeline process in PHP fluid and readable.

Share:
Read the RFC: The Pipe Operator marco avatar
marco
voted yes
79

With First-class callable syntax available since 8.1, it would now be possible to write it as below, which is much better then string names of functions:

$result = "Hello World"
    |> htmlentities(...)
    |> str_split(...)
    |> fn($x) => array_map(strtoupper(...), $x)
    |> fn($x) => array_filter($x, fn($v) => $v != 'O');
Share:
Read the RFC: The Pipe Operator pronskiy avatar
pronskiy
voted yes
22

I could have used it multiple times for array transformations. But the RFC still built on really ancient PHP behaviour (mapping functions as strings) and should be redone by fosucing only on modern syntax:

  • closures and short closure: |> fn($x) => array_filter($x, fn($v) => $v != 'O')
  • first class callable syntax: |> str_split(...)
Share:
Read the RFC: The Pipe Operator tpetry avatar
tpetry
voted yes
63

For me, the most important argument is that the pipeline pattern is a tried and tested pattern, that this RFC builds upon. A couple of examples:

This RFC adds syntax to make using these kinds of pattern much more convenient.

On top of that, there's the argument that multiple modern languages support a pipe operator:

Finally, I've had numerous occasions where a pipe operator would simplify my own code — I have more than a handful real life cases where this would be useful.

Share:
Read the RFC: The Pipe Operator Contributor brent avatar
brent
voted yes
6

As with all other RFC with 'adding' behaviour, if you don't like it, just don't use it and left it for others :))

Share:
Read the RFC: Interface Default Methods arziel avatar
arziel
voted yes
10

Technically writing a trait isn't a showstopper, but it adds cognitive load because the developer now must know/remember using this Interface requires adding this Trait. PHP should focus more on development experience!

Share:
Read the RFC: Interface Default Methods eugen avatar
eugen
voted yes
39

PHP is evolving. There are new concepts added to many programming languages to ease writing and reading (more important!). PHP should focus more on developer experience (but not for legacy projects that get never upgraded to PHP 8+).

Share:
Read the RFC: Short Closures 2.0 eugen avatar
eugen
voted yes
17

Multi-inheritance seems to be the hot topic that prevented this RFC from being approved even though it was not the RFC target. Multi-inheritance is an afterthought that may or may not be abused with this change. What we want would actually be just the convenience of doing what Traits already allow while reducing potential BC break impact coming from interface changes. There are interfaces originated from the interface segregation mindset that often has only 1 implementation and could very well take advantage of default implementation for a simpler system design.

Share:
Read the RFC: Interface Default Methods marco avatar
marco
voted yes
81

We spend a lot more time reading code than writing it. The elegance of short closure combined with the convenience of variable scope usage has already shown to be a game changer on Typescript and there doesn’t seem to be any technical issue with having it on PHP.

Share:
Read the RFC: Short Closures 2.0 marco avatar
marco
voted yes
120

At least once a week, I throw away an array_map because it ended up looking too bloated and go with a classic foreach instead. Short Closures 2.0 without the use(...) block would've solved this problem, just 2 votes...

Share:
Read the RFC: Short Closures 2.0 davi avatar
davi
voted yes
40

Creating traits for default implementation is just a pain. I want syntactic sugar

Share:
Read the RFC: Interface Default Methods marc avatar
marc
voted yes
55

I wrote down some thoughts on this RFC on my blog. I think it's worth rethinking our current definition of what "an interface" is. Especially since many languages are interface default methods as their way of multi-inheritance.

Share:
Read the RFC: Interface Default Methods Contributor brent avatar
brent
voted yes
RSS Feed Contribute Watch on YouTube Our License
© 2024 RFC Vote. This project is open source. Contribute and collaborate with us!