Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117980
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b818fb49-ef47-c1d2-eff9-675f8469034c@bastelstu.be>
In-Reply-To: <b818fb49-ef47-c1d2-eff9-675f8469034c@bastelstu.be>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 16:28:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFPFaMLjZ0CTOOiF9hov3x=KoCy6G5UE53_DbBQ2m=887v+P9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000ca4fd05e1a667af"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Make iterator_to_array() accept all iterables
From: george.banyard@gmail.com ("G. P. B.")

--0000000000000ca4fd05e1a667af
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 16:20, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote:

> Hi Internals
>
> I've come across a case where it would've been useful if
> `iterator_to_array()` would accept iterable instead of Traversable to
> avoid checking whether the input variable already is an array.
>
> To not repeat what I've already written in my proposed PR, please see:
>
>    https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/8819
>
> for more details.
>
> In response to my question whether this would require an RFC or whether
> this is simple enough, cmb pointed to a previous RFC that proposed
> *adding* a new function `iterable_to_array()` which was declined:
>
>    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/iterable_to_array-and-iterable_count
>
> cmb also suggested that for this reason this topic should at least be
> shortly discussed on the list, which I intend to do with this email:
>
> - Do you believe that my PR requires an RFC / do you want to see an RFC
> for this?
> - Would you object to extending 'iterator_to_array' from Traversable to
> iterable (i.e. to Traversable|array)?
>
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php


Considering the other RFC has been declined, and I can see the value of it
and the change is rather minimal, if no one has any objections I think this
is fine to land without any RFC.

Best regards,

George P. Banyard

--0000000000000ca4fd05e1a667af--