Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102717
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain basereality.com from 209.85.160.68 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <tencent_3910FA2861CB2DDC6DBA9FF9@qq.com>
References: <e8fdd7ca-135a-2a7f-79cd-e45486f4ba8b@web.de> <tencent_3910FA2861CB2DDC6DBA9FF9@qq.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:46:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuQ4C1Xym7K9Q_iM5WOwi1eF5e-_xcKQx=17HnPGRGBWRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: CHU Zhaowei <me@jhdxr.com>
Cc: "Woortmann, Enno" <enno.woortmann@web.de>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re:[PHP-DEV] [VOTE] array_key_first(),
 array_key_last(), array_value_first(),array_value_last()
From: danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)

Also voting no, and wished I had mailed earlier.

Accessing the keys and values separately is not a good design in my
opinion, as it leads to:

> All four functions either return the requested key/value
> or null if an empty array is provided.

Having what looks likes valid values returned for array_value_first()
and array_value_last()

A think a better pattern would be to return a tuple as Levi suggested.

[$key, $value] =3D array_first($array);
[$key, $value] =3D array_last($array);

For people not used to returning tuples.....you should branch out a
bit and try using them.

They are a better pattern to  use when returning multiple values from
a function that don't need/deserve their own class/struct creating.

cheers
Dan
Ack


On 9 July 2018 at 18:31, CHU Zhaowei <me@jhdxr.com> wrote:
> I voted no.
> I don't think we have an agreement on dealing with non-existing value, an=
d the way this RFC proposed, just returning null without any notice/warning=
, is wrong IMO. I know we already do this in other array_* functions, but w=
e cannot keep making mistakes just because we already made same mistake.
>
> Regards,
> CHU Zhaowei