Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102269
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain web.de designates 217.72.192.78 as permitted sender)
To: "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <75db877c-ef0b-7d3b-48a8-9879d90352b0@web.de>
 <6ec97c5a-3790-2391-6232-d0cc2d36b9c3@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <9db5a21b-2801-3db5-44ae-d03f1e531deb@web.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 00:27:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6ec97c5a-3790-2391-6232-d0cc2d36b9c3@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [RFC][Under Discussion] Add functions array_key_first() and
 array_key_last()
From: enno.woortmann@web.de (Enno Woortmann)

Hi,

On 13.06.2018 at 23:10, Christoph M. Becker wrote:

> I suggest to address C=C3=B4me's suggestion[1] on this mailing list and=

> especially in the RFC (the template[2] offers =E2=80=9COpen Issues=E2=80=
=9D and
> =E2=80=9CRejected Features=E2=80=9D sections).
>
> [1] <https://externals.io/message/102225#102232>
>

I've added the "Open Issues" section to the RFC and added the idea of C=C3=
=B4me and Gabriel to add the corresponding functions for handling the val=
ues of the outer elements of an array to provide a complete set of functi=
ons.
Currently I see three possibilities to handle the idea. Either extend the=
 scope of the RFC to cover also the handling of the values, which could b=
e implemented rather fast and by reusing a lot of code as the current imp=
lementation already gathers the bucket for the first/last element of an a=
rray, or move this idea to a future scope which should be covered by a se=
parate RFC. The third alternative would be to skip the implementation of =
the corresponding functions.

In my opinion it's a good idea to complete the function set by also provi=
ding functions for the handling of array values. Both opportunities which=
 would lead to the completed set are practicable in my view.

Any opinions concerning this issue?

Good night (or day, wherever you are ;) ),
Enno