Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120637 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 44308 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2023 08:02:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 20 Jun 2023 08:02:48 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE93F180506 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 01:02:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT, FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-oa1-f49.google.com (mail-oa1-f49.google.com [209.85.160.49]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 01:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1a997531cceso3856407fac.3 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 01:02:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1687248167; x=1689840167; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4h8Mnjiy5rg7JAGQjBayg0hB+U8tGi8u5/HxJS8ImvQ=; b=nFsx7B06KvIleNzazvgGefgdN5QhmaSVI0kADTXAPO1XRt7dKH0EqdrmyYSdRyEGCU /MyKsJc65TKJosBu8NyosW0sJO+mj5MUcbkzHNZIyM543yCALqSXf95V9x+68cFMKRzO 5gN+85fS/acSWgUnmQcDfJpJyEqnqAKzk/hglXwNZ6nVWG/nkoCJ4OZsWwXVwR+wSXog doEaRdYwQxZ4nkJoyN4eYvFJfQyT2hIRU5ys/psM/ISRc+Wp6fROBm+GW0p2ZN3ttQYl rryx61If4eLuuG/JvlflWLx+aPI/qX6F47i2iNDzMwLAGkGwaTanvNeAbEoMOtFo9V8i 2Z7g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1687248167; x=1689840167; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=4h8Mnjiy5rg7JAGQjBayg0hB+U8tGi8u5/HxJS8ImvQ=; b=WOrXFmfiGBmiTybEs8Xr+ljazk8Lgly3E7Iq5dczqb4S2tA/63BmxlggrDrK327Y8X mly1Z/A+b5bVsmHZ6MTaEjLMcGgGxk4omkDKlEzf0wvdHdeZbUS5a9UYp7bhTFj1ywsE McjDSilQY9iYs7JToNnuJp3jEVTb5cVfRQ8Fyz558UZSiIdxsEXaCy3aguPoVaMOrc57 JOr0NOSsjFp3HSlwQanuyCQWIYcV5D3FQZAiQr/wIfFXRpwwTxebTfavZnt342lcRbb7 Fm2GNKY7T98pfj9Q4uxhbkA06042LPV6/GaSlrAkYyySwHiAtRv4GNXuXrSE6CdcMzFL Ke6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxziJ3typISE1Jum+OlkXxDAws/JFfo4KKjQhjS6ENyxFVB43kf 2BbwzjpcUrgARKGGjzIx37jCiUv3ulQiFwIYMA8EK8W6ZKONKg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4Ah1gmQBG/y882C38JXHI9Px6Ylet8xVORnaNvCjKgCYj92tZcQ1ErozREMbEqIcB02xIyWoWlH9WP3VQOQAs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:450c:b0:1a2:93ff:a275 with SMTP id nj12-20020a056871450c00b001a293ffa275mr11804994oab.38.1687248166728; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 01:02:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <648B28D5.1060506@adviesenzo.nl> <64912128.1@adviesenzo.nl> In-Reply-To: <64912128.1@adviesenzo.nl> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:02:35 +0200 Message-ID: To: Juliette Reinders Folmer Cc: internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a03af005fe8b135a" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Deprecate functions with overloaded signatures From: kocsismate90@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?=) --000000000000a03af005fe8b135a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Juliette, Respectfully though, in my opinion selectively leaving out impact analysis > without mentioning why they are missing in the RFC, reeks of trying to hi= de > information which could influence the vote. > Maybe just mentioning why the impact analysis is missing in these cases i= n > the RFC could take that stench away ? > I respectfully disagree that it would affect the vote result, but I added the clarification you suggested nevertheless. :) Doing so resulted in a very nice side-effect: I noticed that the array_keys_search() function name is slightly inconsistent/misleading, since what it really does is to filter keys based on their *value* (thus the $filter_value param name). So I renamed it to array_keys_filter() as well as came up with a new suggested replacement which is compatible with at least PHP 4: using the combination of array_keys() and array_filter() retains the original behavior (example is added to the RFC). I know that it's less than ideal performance-wise, but it works anyway (and not all code is performance sensitive). Thanks, M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 --000000000000a03af005fe8b135a--