Version 2.0

[nikic]

I'd like to release version 2.0 with PHP version requirement bumped to 7.1 and added type hints.

Are there any other (breaking) changes that should be done now?

[staabm]

Not sure it is a BC break, but would it make sense to return static closures?

[nikic]

@staabm What would be the benefit? As this is a function library, we don't have a $this binding, so we're not holding onto unnecessary objects or causing GC issues. Is the idea to prevent an explicit rebinding?

[staabm]

Hmm idea was preventing a $this binding, but as you said.... in this case there isnt one.

[jvasseur]

isIterable could be removed now that we depends on PHP >= 7.1 that has is_iterable.

[ragboyjr]

My 2 cents would be a way to enable better composition of iter funcs. It can only be so good since we are using php, but it would be nice if we could have something like:

$items = compose(
    filter(function($v) { return $v % 2 == 0; }),
    map(function($v) { return $v * 2; };
)([1,2,3,4]);

There'd be plenty of ways to implementing something like this, but it would be an awesome addition.

[nikic]

@ragboyjr I can totally see the motivation for that, but am somewhat leery of changing the design in this direction. It looks nice with composition, but this turns a single call into map($fn)($array) -- which is possible since PHP 7, but also very un-PHPy.

Another similar feature request is in #45, which instead suggests a fluent object API on the toIter() return value.

[ragboyjr]

Ha yes, it isn’t very php. How hard would it be to add a new namespace where we automatically curry the normal inter functions. Similar to the reversible functions?

[nikic]

Something like this?

use iter\{fn, curried};

$items = fn\compose(
    curried\filter(function($v) { return $v % 2 == 0; }),
    curried\map(fn\operator('*', 2))
)([1, 2, 3, 4]);

[ragboyjr]

100%. Exactly.

[carusogabriel]

@nikic Some proposals: 1) I tried to refactor iter\fn::operator with evals and etc, but I didn't get anything. That $functions array contains almost the exact same code for each operator :disappointed:

2) May we apply PSRs in our code? Rename classes to match each file, add methods visibility and all the PSR stuff? :smile:

[scaytrase]

just a random suggestion - can we use iterable namespace in 2.0 instead of iter, to be more consistent with native function naming (\iterable\map instead of \array_map, etc)

[nikic]

Version 2.0 with the rename from iter\fn to iter\func and the raise of the minimum version is now released. Otherwise only minor changes.