Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113133
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
In-Reply-To: <CAGBsUrcJDkQKJnKV1XrLksJi64Uvhja9XQr21KHHMCm8wZ+D2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 11:14:28 -0500
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <D3CDB226-4C59-4A4C-AA4E-CABFC84C7383@newclarity.net>
References: <DM6PR07MB66189594D6D3B6D820E4A5FBF98F9@DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <77dfe9e5-a6d1-4a41-bceb-454a65cf34d0@www.fastmail.com>
 <DM6PR07MB6618999C8F1AAC35BF2F8C87F98F9@DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <f1abc6fd-dfad-4cd4-a124-58475312fa86@www.fastmail.com>
 <DM6PR07MB66184FDB329A71B371883C54F98E9@DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAGBsUrcJDkQKJnKV1XrLksJi64Uvhja9XQr21KHHMCm8wZ+D2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kamil Tekiela <tekiela246@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] PHP\iterable\any() and all() on iterables
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)



> On Feb 8, 2021, at 7:37 PM, Kamil Tekiela <tekiela246@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Hi Tyson,
>=20
> Thanks for the RFC. I have to say that I like the core concept and the
> motivation behind it. However, let me explain why I voted No.
>=20
> 1. As others have said I think that the scope is too small. If we are =
going
> to create that namespace then I would like to see more =
functions/classes in
> that namespace.
> 2. I don't like the name. I know the namespace might provide some =
guidance
> of what the function is, but namespaces are often imported. What we =
are
> left with in the code is then `any()`/`all()` that doesn't have a
> self-describing name. any_values is better but still doesn't describe =
the
> action that the function will take. I am a strong believer that =
methods and
> functions should be called with verbs which describe an action. e.g.
> search, filter, combine, merge, etc. There can always be exceptions =
but
> there should be a good reason to justify such an exception.

Having self-describing function names is a good policy for userland =
code.  However, and piggybacking on what Larry Garfield just wrote, for =
language primitives that will be used often by many developers and that =
have analogues in other languages, having short names works well.=20

By definition there are not tons of language primitives like these for =
developers to learn, at least not when compared to userland code, and =
their shortness empowers developers to write more concise code.

-Mike=