Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113119
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-93-gef6c4048e6-fm-20210128.002-gef6c4048
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f1abc6fd-dfad-4cd4-a124-58475312fa86@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <DM6PR07MB6618999C8F1AAC35BF2F8C87F98F9@DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <DM6PR07MB66189594D6D3B6D820E4A5FBF98F9@DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <77dfe9e5-a6d1-4a41-bceb-454a65cf34d0@www.fastmail.com>
 <DM6PR07MB6618999C8F1AAC35BF2F8C87F98F9@DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:30:35 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] PHP\iterable\any() and all() on iterables
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021, at 12:02 PM, tyson andre wrote:
> Hi Larry Garfield,
>=20
> > > Hi internals,
> > >=20
> > > Voting has started on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/any_all_on_iterable=
 and=20
> > > ends on 2021-02-22.
> > >=20
> > > This RFC proposes to add the functions `PHP\iterable\any(iterable=20=

> > > $input, ?callable $callback =3D null): bool` and `PHP\iterable\all=
(...)`
> > > to PHP's standard library's function set, using the namespace pref=
erred=20
> > > in the previous straw poll.
> > >=20
> > > There is a primary vote on whether to add the functions, and a=20
> > > secondary vote on the name to use within the `PHP\iterable` namesp=
ace.
> > >=20
> > > Thanks,
> > > - Tyson
> > > --
> > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >=20
> >=20
> > Ak!=C2=A0 I literally just finished reading it and wanted to note a =
lack of clarity on one point. :-)
> >=20
> > The signature of the callback is never specified explicitly.=C2=A0 T=
he ternary is a bit confusing.=C2=A0 I assume the signature is=20
> >=20
> > callable(mixed): bool
> >=20
> > But that's not made explicit.=C2=A0 It's also not made explict that =
omitting the callable collapses to "is truthy".=C2=A0 That's a sensible =
thing to do, but it's not stated explicitly anywhere, just inferred from=
 the code sample.
> >=20
> > I'm not sure if it's safe to clarify at this point as the vote just =
started.
>=20
> If there is a callable, it allows `callable(mixed): mixed`,
> and converts the callable's return value to a boolean.
> So omitting the callable is the same as passing in the callable `fn($x=
)=20
> =3D> $x`, which is equivalent to `fn($x) =3D> (bool)$x`.
> This is exactly what the reference implementation would do.
>=20
> I definitely should have clarified it instead of assuming that the=20
> reference implementation was clear enough.
>=20
> I clarified this and gave examples because the RFC started a few hours=
=20
> ago and the implementation didn't change.

Oof.  I'm glad I asked, because I don't like that at all.  If available,=
 the callable should be returning bool, not "anything that may be truthy=
/falsy."  If you have an explicit function, it should have an explicit r=
eturn type.  A truthy check is a reasonable default, but not for when yo=
u're opting in to specifying the logic.

I am in favor of the RFC, but I will have to consider if that changes my=
 vote to No.

--Larry Garfield