Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102738
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <e8fdd7ca-135a-2a7f-79cd-e45486f4ba8b@web.de> <tencent_3910FA2861CB2DDC6DBA9FF9@qq.com>
 <CAJd4=Ybos2TpD5gkBZu3H-ttamojZkDsrNXz8eLyfNgU0bD2Kw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMT4No0iPMOS-BF4QALGNM9HQ7ynEAZr=Og-XH+T0OJxueBQg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4No0iPMOS-BF4QALGNM9HQ7ynEAZr=Og-XH+T0OJxueBQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:41:40 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NqujZeU8tmAWC0kP+2ZnCvvAhM-nEkwPSPwduxtjL6nuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: mail@pmmaga.net
Cc: me@jhdxr.com, 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: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:41 PM Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:59 PM Pedro Magalh=C3=A3es <mail@pmmaga.net> w=
rote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:31 PM CHU Zhaowei <me@jhdxr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think we have an agreement on dealing with non-existing value=
, and
> > > the way this RFC proposed, just returning null without any notice/war=
ning,
> > > is wrong IMO. I know we already do this in other array_* functions, b=
ut we
> > > cannot keep making mistakes just because we already made same mistake=
.
> > >
> >
> > I voted no for the same reason. I'd even say that introducing a new arr=
ay_
> > function that still accepts non arrays just to return null with a warni=
ng
> > doesn't make sense at this point.
> >
> > With that said, I'd gladly vote yes if there would be a way to distingu=
ish
> > array_value_first([]) from array_value_first([0 =3D> null]).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pedro
>
> To safely use it a call to empty or count or something needs to happen:
>
>     if (!empty($array)) {
>         $value =3D array_value_first($array);
>         // do something with $value
>     }
>
> This is okay, but not great. Compare that to the design that returns a
> tuple though:
>
>     if ([$_, $value] =3D array_first($array)) {
>         // do something with $value
>     }
>
> People who argue against the tuple because they don't like the design
> need to consider the bigger picture. The tuple way is less code,
> serves more use cases with fewer functions, and I even [implemented
> it][1]. If the array destructuring behavior seems unclear we can
> simply put an example in the manual pages for these functions --
> problem solved.
>
> This is not how RFC feedback should be handled. I hope more people
> vote no so we can reject this do it properly.