Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121399
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <173ca550-71a0-4bd4-96f2-b64b6155115a@app.fastmail.com>
 <CBB83C7D-B10F-410E-B879-F2FA9EDB2F65@sakiot.com> <CAB_ngDi2bEWYxWF+XMmGHXty5hH44=DepdisOQX9hcGLmz0w9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADK1yXLJWo7NJdBGVbtGEeDjRfc1f1LbftgdoP3co_D6d8nz5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPzBOBO=_WODT0HC0uaJ3OvqxD4YuMXqL5a-4tiH+MZAk1TUNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADK1yXLNz9Qugut4i723TyEbhO0ntWXac=kaUKMMo_a+0piaGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPzBOBOUGcRVAV6hUa8uDFgOXGLChAwRv-ga5R1-cnD39cXEpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADK1yXJbT_r0B0d6-Xiet7MYpphdk7FuFqtvo23K6WcmVZ4EzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPzBOBMvGj5JKdvf_xvLZ+f48rbWxAaWOydDKDdbjuCoH1s8zg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPzBOBMvGj5JKdvf_xvLZ+f48rbWxAaWOydDKDdbjuCoH1s8zg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:37:17 -0300
Message-ID: <CADK1yXKzEeT7cJB_o=0_jUmSN+hPyOVVr20WELa4DTBjqDvTpA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Landers <landers.robert@gmail.com>
Cc: Brandon Jackson <brandonja991@gmail.com>, Saki Takamachi <saki@sakiot.com>, 
	Levi Morrison via internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000035896b0607ff6c6f"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Two new functions array_first() and array_last()
From: deleugyn@gmail.com (Deleu)

--00000000000035896b0607ff6c6f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:04=E2=80=AFPM Robert Landers <landers.robert@gma=
il.com>
wrote:

> > I completely understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with th=
e
> thought process. What I disagree with is your statement that you will
> always use array_first() together with array_key_first(). When talking
> about standard lists (indexed from 0 to upper-bound), array_first() is an
> order of magnitude more useful than array_key_first() as we always know
> what the first key is: 0.
>
> This is simply not true, 0 is not always the first key in a list,
> especially after filtering it. Hence there is a need for this function
> in the first place.
>

To give back on the same format, "this is simply not true". Here are the
facts:

- https://www.php.net/manual/en/function.array-is-list.php
- Determines if the given array is a list. An array is considered a list if
its keys consist of consecutive numbers from 0 to count($array)-1."
- https://3v4l.org/JZS9N#v8.2.11

At this point I have nothing else to add to this conversation. You will
either accept that it is actually possible to use `array_first()` without
using `array_key_first()` or you'll keep believing that your knowledge and
experience is the only correct one.

I believe my reservations have been registered, I would not like to have
`array_first()` behave in a non-obvious way (i.e. involving array $key)
because it's useful for Fibers users. I believe that writing your own
wrapper that always returns key and value simultaneously is easy and
straight-forward and may even make it into the core in the future. Rather
than trying to solve deep convoluted issues on version 1, I believe PHP
could introduce the simplest version of the function first and later on add
an array_first_key_value() in the future if needed.

In fact, I encourage you to propose an RFC for `array_first_key_value()` as
a solution for the problem you're raising.

--=20
Marco Deleu

--00000000000035896b0607ff6c6f--