Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130574
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Message-ID: <1775385960072.803756451.2349920337@yahoo.de>
To: barel.barelon@gmail.com
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] array_get and array_has functions
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2026 10:52:12 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CABVsipg7tPv8roLP4CpJRBeK_beds-R-_DE7DXKnznZsd5UbiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABVsipg7tPv8roLP4CpJRBeK_beds-R-_DE7DXKnznZsd5UbiQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Vivaldi Mail/7.9.3970.47
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: hanskrentel@yahoo.de (Hans Krentel)





On Sunday 05 April 2026 11:43:03 (+02:00), Barel wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 at 10:13, Hans Krentel <hanskrentel@yahoo.de> wrote:
>=20
> >
> > On Saturday 04 April 2026 16:06:21 (+02:00), Barel wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I would like to open the discussion on my proposal to add two small,
> > > focused array functions for retrieving and checking nested array =
elements
> > > using dot notation.
> > >
> > > This is the link to the RFC:
> > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_get_and_array_has
> > >
> > > This is the link to the proposed implementation:
> > > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/21637
> > >
> > > Thanks!!
> >
> > Thank you very much! That=E2=80=99s very interesting, so I have to ask =
right away:
> > Is there a specific reason to limit this to strings, integers, and null=
 for
> > arrays, rather than also allowing arrays or iterables?
> >
> > This reminds me of JSON Pointers (RFC 6901), which can usually be =
easily
> > mapped as an iterable with string keys, which can then be accessed via =
the
> > holder variable, similar to the foreach example you already describe =
in
> > your RFC.
> >
> > If these two functions supported passing an array/iterable with the
> > traversal keys as a second parameter, this would be advantageous, since=
 the
> > JSON pointer would then not need to be recoded into dot notation, but =
only
> > (if not already done) sliced and passed as an array as the second =
parameter.
> >
> > That's why I'm asking.
> >
> > Interestingly, JSON Pointer solves the =E2=80=9Cnull problem=E2=80=9D =
by prefixing the
> > zero or more reference tokens (keys) with a slash =E2=80=98/=E2=80=99, =
and it supports all
> > seven types of JSON values without limiting itself to just JSON arrays =
or
> > objects. This is just food for thought: array_... are clearly array
> > functions, so this =E2=80=9Crestriction=E2=80=9D is likely intentional.=
 In PHP, however, I
> > can also imagine iterables that resemble what you=E2=80=99ve already =
described in
> > your RFC, and from there it=E2=80=99s not far to the holder object we =
see in JSON
> > and JSON Pointer. So please don=E2=80=99t confuse my =
=E2=80=9Crequest=E2=80=9D regarding
> > arrays/iterables with the first parameter; it=E2=80=99s simply about =
passing the
> > key as a keys, which is a small improvement over dot notation.
> >
> > With arrays in PHP, users will likely prefer the non-standard, more =
custom
> > dot notation, and that=E2=80=99s perfectly fine. I saw many people =
asking for this
> > in the early days of Stack Overflow, and if Symfony/Laravel have it as
> > well, that=E2=80=99s just another strong indication of such a =
preference.
> >
> > Thanks again for your RFC
> >
> >
> > --hakre
> >
> > P.S. Work on the RFC documentation for JSON Path finally began in 2020,=

> > and it was published in February 2024. The standard has its roots in =
PHP
> > and JavaScript, and perhaps it=E2=80=99s time for PHP to expand its =
standard
> > library with such features at the same pace we did with JSON. Your RFC
> > seems well-suited for this purpose. Thanks again.
> >
>=20
> Thanks for your comments. Someone else already suggested allowing arrays
> for the $key parameter and I am considering it, I think it will probably =
be
> a good addition

Yes, I agree, and I suggest we also consider _iterable_ as part of this =
discussion.

Thank you Carlos as well for your work on these functions.

--hakre