Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60639
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain nebm.ist.utl.pt from 193.136.128.22 cause and error)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>, "Richard Lynch"
 <ceo@l-i-e.com>
References: <op.weam11i9idpuyk@slws007.slhq.int>
 <CAKxcST8W3+EgpefAOWFRexs--85Sbd-Zg0fXdBX2Rrf=xReB9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <op.weane2zqidpuyk@slws007.slhq.int>
 <CAKxcST-yqgPqD0MyfaVKujC+XC1Fq7-x6gzsuwykhjybY0K06g@mail.gmail.com>
 <op.weaqn2f8idpuyk@slws007.slhq.int>
 <CAEZPtU65kBtuyU1RR0iet-1DmEcADRJM5NaFCzuBguGSkkBLYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKxcST-GA6Z+z54pbYs_SJEogf1_UdFBMkzT==n+TPAPgnnuaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <op.weaxbvdqidpuyk@slws007.slhq.int>
 <478d25fa5ff481b470bd07c7ce627e03.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 23:14:05 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: =?utf-8?Q?N=C3=BAcleo_de_Eng=2E_Biom=C3=A9di?=
 =?utf-8?Q?ca_do_I=2ES=2ET=2E?=
Message-ID: <op.weofxrrfidpuyk@damnation>
In-Reply-To: <478d25fa5ff481b470bd07c7ce627e03.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.64 (Win32)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] array_part()
From: glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt ("Gustavo Lopes")

First, I'd like to announce the native implementation is available on  
github:

https://github.com/cataphract/php-src/compare/array_part

Please review this feature BEFORE voting starts. Unless something comes up  
that has to be dealt with until then, I want to start voting on Monday,  
28th May.

Now my answer to Richard:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 21:30:24 +0200, Richard Lynch <ceo@l-i-e.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 14, 2012 9:03 am, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
>> * array_slice() can preserve keys, array_part() cannot because when
>> collapsing levels this would mean the possibility of overwriting
>> elements.
>
> A predictable LIFO or FIFO for any collapsed keys would be reasonable,
> and probably not much more work to implement.
>
> By LIFO I mean that the last value to be put under a key would "win" I
> think that would be the most natural.
>

Such a behavior would be possible and would not be difficult to implement.  
However, it raises questions that are not easy to answer like:
- should it keep the first or the last keys? Or perhaps it could instead  
collect all the elements under a new array.
- should the behavior for numeric keys differ from that of string keys  
(perhaps in a array_merge way?)

Since the path to add this behavior in the future is straightforward (add  
another optional argument, like in array_slice), not including it causes  
little damage in terms of future growth.

On the other hand, my hope is that limiting the current design decisions  
to a easy subset may allow this to be merged rapidly.

-- 
Gustavo Lopes