Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102759
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.15.15 as permitted sender)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=c3=b6rn_Larsson?= <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>,
 Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>, "Woortmann, Enno" <enno.woortmann@web.de>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Pedro_Magalh=c3=a3es?= <mail@pmmaga.net>,
 CHU Zhaowei <me@jhdxr.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
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>
 <13b4eb91-6566-3724-d45d-aa63254e1f58@telia.com>
Message-ID: <a02bcf08-160a-59d1-a3bc-3ba7460c78bc@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:27:17 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <13b4eb91-6566-3724-d45d-aa63254e1f58@telia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: de-DE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re:[PHP-DEV] [VOTE] array_key_first(),array_key_last(),
 array_value_first(),array_value_last()
From: cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker")

On 11.07.2018 at 17:19, Björn Larsson wrote:

> Den 2018-07-11 kl. 02:41, skrev Levi Morrison:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:59 PM Pedro Magalhães <mail@pmmaga.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/warning,
>>>> is wrong IMO. I know we already do this in other array_* functions,
>>>> but 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
>>> array_
>>> function that still accepts non arrays just to return null with a
>>> warning
>>> doesn't make sense at this point.
>>>
>>> With that said, I'd gladly vote yes if there would be a way to
>>> distinguish
>>> array_value_first([]) from array_value_first([0 => null]).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Pedro
>> To safely use it a call to empty or count or something needs to happen:
>>
>>      if (!empty($array)) {
>>          $value = array_value_first($array);
>>          // do something with $value
>>      }
>>
>> This is okay, but not great. Compare that to the design that returns a
>> tuple though:
>>
>>      if ([$_, $value] = array_first($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.
>>
> I do like this approach with two functions array_first & array_last
> returning
> a tuple. However, voting is  underway and it looks like it will pass.
> 
> I wonder what the RFC author (Enno W) thinks about that approach?

This already has been discussed weeks ago, see
<https://externals.io/message/102245#102317>.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker