Re: [RFC] Pipe Operator

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see how it helps anything. It just replaces clear variable names > with cryptic sequences of characters with no intuitive meaning and magic > semantics invented solely to save a few keystrokes. > Yep, that's exactly what "->" does. It's just pointless syntactic sugar for hiding "$obj" when calling functions which happen to take an instance as their magicly passed argument. Oh, sorry, we were talking about the function version of ->, my mistake. That's a totally different thing. > Moreover, it would > only in one sole use case where functions always return a value that is > immediately passed to the next one and is sole argument for it, > Hrmmm... Did you read the RFC? It's pretty clear that the lhs expression can be used in a lot more cases that function calls and that it needn't be the only argument. Better read it again. > Quite the opposite. It has completely unobvious syntax (what is $$? What > is the value of $$? how I see this value if I need to debug this code?) > and does not allow to do anything but making code more cryptic. > That's a great reason for voting against short ternary syntax. What the hell is "?:", anyway? -Sara