Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121343
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL-Ucw5Yu4ai-n6t=GdRX+DC+8a7_Z5Mw-pYN+jUtpZUGN7svg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKU0umZoX0JGMuQiXZb2z6nqqNYDisncRj909Rp67g80Ab4NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPzBOBNukh-AALa4mCPorDowFG7stmEfC-18DEXkVw6OYCj3EA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPzBOBNukh-AALa4mCPorDowFG7stmEfC-18DEXkVw6OYCj3EA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:21:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CANS-=peo7bm4eqU0m+vKBXGmpWBheXEUD-yQmAx8Dw48yzCgWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Landers <landers.robert@gmail.com>
Cc: Levi Morrison <levi.morrison@datadoghq.com>, David Grudl <david@grudl.com>, 
	internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000199e60607e60f13"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Two new functions array_first() and array_last()
From: kjarli@gmail.com (Lynn)

--0000000000000199e60607e60f13
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:15=E2=80=AFAM Robert Landers <landers.robert@gma=
il.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:10=E2=80=AFAM Levi Morrison via internals
> <internals@lists.php.net> wrote:
>
> How is returning null any different than $array[0] on an empty array?
> https://3v4l.org/ <https://3v4l.org/K3gRs>>

> > 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
> $key =3D \array_key_first($array);
> if ($key =3D=3D=3D null) {
>     // handle the failure
> } else {
>     // success
>     $value =3D $array[$key];
> }
> ```
>
> Yes, it would be slightly nicer if we could do:
>
> ```php
> $value =3D \array_first($array);
> if ($value =3D=3D=3D 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.
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

> >K3gRs <https://3v4l.org/K3gRs>
>
> Currently, it just outputs a warning, but the result is `null`.
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
I'm okay with `null` being given back as it's the current behavior of
accessing the key as well, which is often checked through `$array[0] ??
null`. Something like an `undefined` type could solve this problem, but
personally not a fan of this in Javascript. Maybe `array_has_first` or
something could be made, but honestly I would still just check for `null`
myself most likely.

--0000000000000199e60607e60f13--