Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111804
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 09:58:40 +0200
To: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <20200903095840.4b83640d@mcmic-probook.opensides.be>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c8A7oWmM45poXj2goghCa00Jz3fiU7ud-aZgVwCfgXOzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <89FF9360-609A-439F-BDBE-B3B4C141E00F@newclarity.net>
	<CAF+90c8A7oWmM45poXj2goghCa00Jz3fiU7ud-aZgVwCfgXOzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: FusionDirectory
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Draft RFC: foreach iteration of keys without values
From: come.chilliet@fusiondirectory.org (=?UTF-8?B?Q8O0bWU=?= Chilliet)

Le Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:13:20 +0200,
Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> a =C3=A9crit :
> Just like the first time this was discussed, I don't think this RFC makes=
 a
> sufficient case on why we need explicit syntax for this. Just ignoring the
> value is an existing pattern that works across all PHP versions:
>=20
>     foreach ($iterable as $key =3D> $_) { ... }

I currently use foreach (array_keys($array) as $key) { ... }
 to avoid complains from code analysers on unused var, is it slower?
One obvious pro of having a dedicated syntax is not having to ask those
 questions to ourselves while coding.

> Iterating over just the keys is not a super common pattern and we already
> have a reasonable way to do it (that is imho just as clear, and actually
> more concise than the proposed "null" variant). The only potential
> advantage to a dedicated syntax that I see is that there could be iterato=
rs
> that can cheaply produce keys, but have expensive to produce values. That
> seems like an edge case of an edge case though, and is a situation where
> manually calling ->key() would be justifiable.

In our code base I thinks it is quite common.
grepping on "foreach (array_keys" gives me 51 cases, while grepping "foreac=
h ("
 gives me 1153, so that=E2=80=99s 4% of our foreach uses.

C=C3=B4me