Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117981
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-712-gb9e94258b0-fm-20220610.001-gb9e94258
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0f799483-a176-4b25-a81c-5eb6e9b529c1@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b818fb49-ef47-c1d2-eff9-675f8469034c@bastelstu.be>
References: <b818fb49-ef47-c1d2-eff9-675f8469034c@bastelstu.be>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:46:40 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Make iterator_to_array() accept all iterables
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
> Hi Internals
>
> I've come across a case where it would've been useful if=20
> `iterator_to_array()` would accept iterable instead of Traversable to=20
> 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 whethe=
r=20
> this is simple enough, cmb pointed to a previous RFC that proposed=20
> *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=20
> 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 RF=
C=20
> for this?
> - Would you object to extending 'iterator_to_array' from Traversable t=
o=20
> iterable (i.e. to Traversable|array)?

I support this; my only wrinkle would be that it's still a long name com=
pared to what many languages have for this functionality, but I suppose =
that ship has long since sailed. :-)

Since it's a strictly type-widening change with no BC implications I can=
 think of, I am impartial on RFC or not.  If it's going to get an RFC, t=
hough, that needs to be posted, like, immediately if it's going to get i=
nto 8.2.

--Larry Garfield