Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102763
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.47 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>
 <13b4eb91-6566-3724-d45d-aa63254e1f58@telia.com> <a02bcf08-160a-59d1-a3bc-3ba7460c78bc@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <a02bcf08-160a-59d1-a3bc-3ba7460c78bc@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:16:16 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4Np-sQ4MtGyN_M1t=pEY05gv7QDrUgPO2j3LZKe5G3tCSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Larsson?= <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>, 
	enno.woortmann@web.de, mail@pmmaga.net, me@jhdxr.com, 
	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 Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 9:27 AM Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> wro=
te:
>
> On 11.07.2018 at 17:19, Bj=C3=B6rn Larsson wrote:
>
> > Den 2018-07-11 kl. 02:41, skrev Levi Morrison:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:59 PM Pedro Magalh=C3=A3es <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 mistak=
e.
> >>>>
> >>> 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 =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.
> >>
> > 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

This was not discussed, it was discarded. Enormous difference.