Re: [PHP-DEV] [Vote] Pipe operator v2

This is only part of a thread. view whole thread
  115335
July 6, 2021 23:54 bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand)
Hey Larry,

there's still ongoing discussion on the semantics, and mirroring implementation defined semantics from the implementation into the RFC is not the way to go. The RFC should discuss reasons of why semantics were chosen and the implementation then be decided upon it. Describing it as "design artifact" is not okay.
I'm voting no at this point, to force it to be postponed to PHP 8.2 with proper thought of what the semantics shall be. Possibly the semantics are fine (I tend to disagree with the current ones, but that's rather point for discussion), but they are not discussed enough, especially as they only got described in the RFC in the last minutes before the vote.

Bob

> Am 06.07.2021 um 19:13 schrieb Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>: > > I have opened the vote on the Pipe operator RFC: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pipe-operator-v2 > > The vote will close on 20 July. > > -- > Larry Garfield > larry@garfieldtech.com > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php >
  115352
July 7, 2021 14:32 larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, at 6:54 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
> Hey Larry, > > there's still ongoing discussion on the semantics, and mirroring > implementation defined semantics from the implementation into the RFC > is not the way to go. The RFC should discuss reasons of why semantics > were chosen and the implementation then be decided upon it. Describing > it as "design artifact" is not okay. > I'm voting no at this point, to force it to be postponed to PHP 8.2 > with proper thought of what the semantics shall be. Possibly the > semantics are fine (I tend to disagree with the current ones, but > that's rather point for discussion), but they are not discussed enough, > especially as they only got described in the RFC in the last minutes > before the vote.
The semantics around how references work with pipes have been consistent from April 2020 until today, aside from a few hours from when Nikita suggested blocking it to when I determined it was more work than I could handle on short notice. The RFC description of those semantics was clear and accurate for that entire time, modulo those few hours, and there was a test confirming them. So "they only got described in the RFC in the last minutes before the vote" is factually inaccurate. Wanting to think deeper about how references should work is fine, but please don't misrepresent the situation. How references work in this RFC has been explicitly defined since it was first introduced 15 months ago, and the first pushback on it at all as far as I recall came less than 48 hours before the feature freeze, leaving no time to have such a discussion. --Larry Garfield