Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102332
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4Nr3PL6391-Xoe2Ou0eec=Na05c6YqwH8Cx3ngYP_tz_nw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <75db877c-ef0b-7d3b-48a8-9879d90352b0@web.de> <76e4744f-6722-ee49-0325-e4433236f1b1@web.de>
 <73ac8914-8c9f-e74b-a4f5-f6e39cd96f8f@gmx.de> <3242366.BL9MUqXe46@vulcan>
 <CAFMT4Nr6B-+XwzoepUfDHuJVB9xfuJ+f-WBys_FhaERGK8gEQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <154ba124-2915-ca36-fa39-5df6726d3b5a@web.de> <CAFMT4NrESgpg4EWoEJx=SUdBHwy0gd5jdF=ceUWneWtVfpNxsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <bae8824f-55e0-dc88-eb2d-40c69c60d834@web.de> <CAFMT4Nr3PL6391-Xoe2Ou0eec=Na05c6YqwH8Cx3ngYP_tz_nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 18:02:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CALKiJKqJp9vT=Eft3fyHSK7_1PsA+U-9dpsWUYkfGqb9c7soMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Cc: enno.woortmann@web.de, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c7274f056f15c457"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Under Discussion] Add functions
 array_key_first()and array_key_last()
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

--000000000000c7274f056f15c457
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On 20 June 2018 at 17:19, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:

> Bad behavior of existing functions does not mean we should create new
> functions with the same bad behavior. If you believe lack of education
> regarding array destructuring is an issue then we can use this example
> specifically in the docs for these functions; problem solved.
>


I'm torn between your point of view and Enno's.

Note that we're not talking about "lack of education regarding array
destructuring", because there's no array being destructured; we're talking
about "lack of education regarding the side-effect behaviour of the array
destructuring operator when given a non-array input". It's a pretty
obscure, seemingly undocumented, language feature, and one which the RFC
you linked seems to have originally classed as unwanted behaviour.

If it was used in a prominent example, maybe other uses for this idiom
might start cropping up, and people would start using it. Even so, if I saw
it while reviewing or debugging code, I would probably be tempted to
refactor it to something "less clever" so that the intent was clearer.

On balance, I don't think the example you gave is a compelling reason, on
its own, to go with your suggested signature. The separate functions feel
more convenient in a lot of cases, but maybe less so in others.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]

--000000000000c7274f056f15c457--