Re: [Vote] Pipe operator v2

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