Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:125819
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:22:55 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <352272ef-55f4-41a5-a083-5ab933adf4e5@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <AM8P250MB01702D66B6FCC3300902654DE2422@AM8P250MB0170.EURP250.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: 
 <ZydAaayECTRNG8Ackhb0tDgYjmdFKnkW4p0ISWlLFP5My4CsJBR1KKTylrD14Ags2GUyBLoJPf68N6Z6LoVzjG-tru8YAbmi74W5xzSkJ8I=@gpb.moe>
 <20340e0e-ddd0-44cd-b555-1402857eb20f@app.fastmail.com>
 <CANNiG7i1mOpXnZGuh6GZBobKnABQYCvzBd1++EOyA8=JRNR6Mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPyj-LBCYXjwcWv8tRwfN+zCM=hwABdiqhRzMcppubASjaM_eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM8P250MB01702D66B6FCC3300902654DE2422@AM8P250MB0170.EURP250.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Change behaviour of array sort functions to return a copy
 of the sorted array
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Sun, Oct 20, 2024, at 4:39 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
> On 20.10.2024 23:23:21, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
>> Hi Bilge
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 10:30=E2=80=AFPM Bilge <bilge@scriptfusion.co=
m> wrote:
>>> I fail to see the logic of present tense =3D mutate, past tense =3D =
copy. At least there is a pattern to it, but I would have to look it up =
several times before it sunk in since it is not intuitive at all.
>> It's sorted, the adjective. As in, "give me a _sorted_ array",
>> compared to "_sort_ this array". It's a common convention and I always
>> found it intuitive.
>>
>> Ilija
>
> Hey Ilija,
>
> yes, I agree it's intuitive.
>
> However, I consider it bad to add extra functions for this behaviour.=20
> There's very little gain in extra functions, sort(), sorted(),=20
> shuffle(), shuffled(), etc..
>
> So yeah, I'd agree on the naming *if* these were the only variation of=20
> sorting/shuffling etc. functions. But that's not the case here.
>
>
> I, for my part, very much like the RFC, for that it gives functionalit=
y,=20
> which I've been missing quite some times already and is minimally inva=
sive.
>
> Bob

I am confused by this statement.  How is "adding more functions that do =
exactly what they say on the tin and act in a predictable fashion" bad? =
 It's not like we're running out of space for functions.  Small, purpose=
-built, highly-predictable APIs that fully address a problem space are t=
he ideal goal; the number of them is largely irrelevant.

I wouldn't mind array_sorted() instead of sorted(), since it wouldn't wo=
rk on iterables.  But array_sort() vs sort() is just horribly confusing =
for no good reason, and the API itself does nothing to tell you which is=
 which.

--Larry Garfield