Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121341
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL-Ucw5Yu4ai-n6t=GdRX+DC+8a7_Z5Mw-pYN+jUtpZUGN7svg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL-Ucw5Yu4ai-n6t=GdRX+DC+8a7_Z5Mw-pYN+jUtpZUGN7svg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: Levi Morrison <levi.morrison@datadoghq.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:10:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAKU0umZoX0JGMuQiXZb2z6nqqNYDisncRj909Rp67g80Ab4NA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Grudl <david@grudl.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Two new functions array_first() and array_last()
From: internals@lists.php.net ("Levi Morrison via internals")

> c) Two such functions were proposed and rejected during the
> array_key_first/last RFC
> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_key_first_last)
>
> Yes, that was in 2018. At that time, functions like str_contains() or
> str_starts_with() wouldn't have even come into existence, just because
> there was an obscure way to do it without them. I believe we've moved
> on since then. Today we know how useful it is to use simple,
> easy-to-understand methods, both for programmers who write and read
> the code.

It's true that sentiment may have shifted in this time. However, a
common argument at that time still stands: `null` is not a good
sentintenal for failure because the value inside the array very well
could have been null. This is not true for the keys. For me
personally, I think I would still vote no. I'm not entirely sure about
that, but that's how I would lean right now.

As it stands, you'd have to write code along the lines of:

```php
$key = \array_key_first($array);
if ($key === null) {
    // handle the failure
} else {
    // success
    $value = $array[$key];
}
```

Yes, it would be slightly nicer if we could do:

```php
$value = \array_first($array);
if ($value === null) {
    // handle the failure
} else {
    // success
}
```

But I fear in practice people will just omit the error checking.

One way around that is to throw an exception. I'm not sure how I feel
about that, but I'll think about it.