Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130199
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABVsipj6sbpDN1qycfkiSKyS1QZcCr2b5yW-tFcTOQy8Ju3jkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM8P250MB017021F68305D9C0D262AB0BE273A@AM8P250MB0170.EURP250.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <09e17a8d-5d40-4b69-bd3f-3e73a7b998b6@app.fastmail.com> <AM8P250MB0170D91016175ADDBBEDC211E273A@AM8P250MB0170.EURP250.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <CAPyj-LCM3QG_EBOEku-68MO_b-_8BDPPwzBxdn=CdcOsQXTo9w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPyj-LCM3QG_EBOEku-68MO_b-_8BDPPwzBxdn=CdcOsQXTo9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:09:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPhkiZydDE-Nw=FsjACyDMmyRbP7AvxPR4YLpCHqPyy-38N+tg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Prefix and Suffix Functions
To: Ilija Tovilo <tovilo.ilija@gmail.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fc416f064bd22358"
From: narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)

--000000000000fc416f064bd22358
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 6:50=E2=80=AFPM Ilija Tovilo <tovilo.ilija@gmail.co=
m> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 5:42=E2=80=AFPM Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>=
 wrote:
> >
> > Hey Larry,
> >
> > On 27.2.2026 17:32:47, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > > Though I would also question why so many people are voting for
> $subject-last for the secondary vote.
> >
> > The two-argument variants are consistent with e.g. addcslashes (one
> > subject operated on with an argument) - so that's perfectly consistent.
> >
> > Then for replacing, you want consistency with str_replace, and
> > preg_replace and such.
>
> Maybe consistently inconsistent. ;) In my opinion, it's much better to
> not keep repeating the same mistake, pick a standard and stick with
> it. Subject-first always works. I wouldn't think many people want to
> internalize the placement of the subject based on the kind of string
> replacement function.


Indeed, alternating parameter order based on the type of operation would be
just frustrating.
Consistency with existing functions is nice in principle, but not all
historic precedents are good.

--000000000000fc416f064bd22358
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=
=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 6:50=E2=80=AFPM Ilija=
 Tovilo &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tovilo.ilija@gmail.com">tovilo.ilija@gmail.co=
m</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"=
>On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 5:42=E2=80=AFPM Bob Weinand &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
bobwei9@hotmail.com" target=3D"_blank">bobwei9@hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<b=
r>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Hey Larry,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On 27.2.2026 17:32:47, Larry Garfield wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; Though I would also question why so many people are voting for $s=
ubject-last for the secondary vote.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The two-argument variants are consistent with e.g. addcslashes (one<br=
>
&gt; subject operated on with an argument) - so that&#39;s perfectly consis=
tent.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Then for replacing, you want consistency with str_replace, and<br>
&gt; preg_replace and such.<br>
<br>
Maybe consistently inconsistent. ;) In my opinion, it&#39;s much better to<=
br>
not keep repeating the same mistake, pick a standard and stick with<br>
it. Subject-first always works. I wouldn&#39;t think many people want to<br=
>
internalize the placement of the subject based on the kind of string<br>
replacement function.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Indeed, alternating p=
arameter order based on the type of operation would be just frustrating.</d=
iv><div>Consistency with existing functions is nice in principle, but not a=
ll historic precedents are good.</div></div></div>

--000000000000fc416f064bd22358--