Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64884 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 38267 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2013 15:22:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Jan 2013 15:22:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:36538] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F6/D1-24230-BBF71F05 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:22:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (xdebug.org [127.0.0.1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C63610D876; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:22:32 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:22:32 +0000 (GMT) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Stas Malyshev cc: Nikita Popov , PHP internals In-Reply-To: <50F0FB3B.2090509@sugarcrm.com> Message-ID: References: <50F0FB3B.2090509@sugarcrm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] array_column() function From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Stas Malyshev wrote: > > Voting no, because - even though I like this feature in principle - I think > > it's much better solved by introducing list comprehensions (which cover > > this and many more cases in a consistent and elegant syntax), which is > > something I have planned for 5.6. > > This is a great illustration of different visions we have here. On one > hand, we have practical, immediate feature that covers a clear use case > and does not add any constructs or complexity to the core language and > services immediate need, covering several lines of frequently > encountered boilerplate code with one function. > > On the other hand, we have a possibility to have in the future a > fashionable syntax, which is a bit better, more concise and "cool > looking" expression for what foreach already can do. > > So, my "vision", for example, is that while there's nothing wrong with > "cool" language syntaxes and adding them, we should not reject simple > practical solutions for them. This is what was done in PHP for years, > and I think it is one of the reasons PHP is a great tool for the > programmer. Just trying to make my "vision" more clear :) I wholeheartly agree with that! cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine