Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106204
Message-ID: <02D61D03-2E07-4043-BA23-A111EA06F452@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_E4AA65F3-B7BB-435B-A958-E828743990F2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 12:20:10 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAPhkiZyLDd=SFOguqPFX-638VN4oor9z7bTAgOyJuA1FPN30VA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de>,
 Andrew Gromov <andrewgrom@rambler.ru>,
 internals <internals@lists.php.net>,
 Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>
To: Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net>
References: <1562591120.659818.23020.47476@mail.rambler.ru>
 <7ff385f1-b86d-e56d-4133-e2f101afa13e@gmx.de>
 <FB6DFBC5-21F1-4219-8C49-09DDE811938E@gmail.com>
 <CAPhkiZyLDd=SFOguqPFX-638VN4oor9z7bTAgOyJuA1FPN30VA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Voting opens for str_starts_with and ends_with
 functions
From: claude.pache@gmail.com (Claude Pache)

--Apple-Mail=_E4AA65F3-B7BB-435B-A958-E828743990F2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> Le 8 juil. 2019 =C3=A0 18:52, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> a =
=C3=A9crit :
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 4:54 PM Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com =
<mailto:claude.pache@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> Le 8 juil. 2019 =C3=A0 15:20, Christoph M. Becker =
<cmbecker69@gmx.de> a =C3=A9crit :
>>>=20
>>> FTR, there is already substr_compare().
>>=20
>> `substr_compare()` (as well as `strncmp()` which I am currently using =
in lieu of `str_starts_with()`) forces you to provides the substring and =
the length of the substring, instead of just the substring:
>>=20
>>     substr_compare('foobarbaz', 'foo', 0, 3) =3D=3D=3D 0
>>     strncmp('foobarbaz', 'foo', 3) =3D=3D=3D 0
>>     str_starts_with('foobarbaz', 'foo')
>>=20
>=20
> The existence of substr_compare() and strncmp() is also my main
> motivation for voting No, though I also share Zeev's reasoning.
>=20
> You're right that the 2 already existing functions are a bit less
> convenient to use, but the RFC doesn't even try to make a case for
> that, so how do we know this was even considered? While I'm not
> against having more than one way of doing things, I do think we need a
> compelling enough reason to add a third way of doing the same thing
> and here we don't even have an attempt to convince us.
>=20
> Cheers,
> Andrey.

The current existing solutions (using `substr()`, `strncmp()`, =
`substr_compare()`, `preg_match()` or whatever) are sufficient=E2=80=94and=
 may even look elegant=E2=80=94if you use them once in a blue moon. But =
if you happen to use them frequently, you=E2=80=99ll find soon that they =
are cumbersome and error-prone compared to the prospective =
`str_starts_with()` and `str_ends_with()`. Concretely:

* Each time I write `strncmp($foo, "bar", 3) =3D=3D=3D 0`, I spend a few =
seconds to double-check the number of bytes in "bar".

* Not later than yesterday, I spent one minute in order to find why =
`substr_compare($file, ".css", -3) =3D=3D=3D 0` didn=E2=80=99t do what I =
meant. Note also that the alternative `substr($file, -3) =3D=3D=3D =
".css"` suffers from the same issue, and that the alternative =
`preg_match('/\\.css$/', $file)` requires you to not forget to escape =
special characters.

Checking whether a string begins, respectively ends, with some substring =
is a relatively common task for some programmers. The issue is that, =
although they have already plenty of ways to do that, none of them is =
natural and all of them have issues.

But indeed, the RFC text fails to discuss the various existing =
alternatives and their downsides.

=E2=80=94Claude


--Apple-Mail=_E4AA65F3-B7BB-435B-A958-E828743990F2--