Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64961
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.51 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <50F49AD7.70409@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:55:03 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <B5.40.02940.19BA0F05@pb1.pair.com> <CAEZPtU6htieXw8D7U4DS-T3c-BqOGLk4D+Tta43FzR5YC8997Q@mail.gmail.com> <50F4802C.5070003@php.net> <CAEZPtU7WjOU6t-Cw4CTTTVLz_iHcKxKcF+OXMzxGw67opEPXMw@mail.gmail.com> <42E0BBCF-074E-493C-9FEA-CE87EE21CE7D@strojny.net>
In-Reply-To: <42E0BBCF-074E-493C-9FEA-CE87EE21CE7D@strojny.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] array_column() function
From: mjpelmear@gmail.com (Matt Pelmear)

On 01/14/2013 02:19 PM, Lars Strojny wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Am 14.01.2013 um 23:16 schrieb Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>:
> [...]
>> Up to you, but I'd to suggest again to re do the vote and add the
>> naming option, easy, clear, open.
> I was one of the people changing from yes to no because of the name. I like the functionality but I prefer no new array function over one with yet another strange name.
>
> cu,
> Lars

You'd rather the new method misuse the meaning of the word "pluck" over 
following an established convention within it's own environment that is 
meaningful?
If it is called "array_pluck" it should remove the data in question from 
the original array. (I'm not saying that is a desirable feature here, 
I'm just saying that makes more sense based on the meaning of the name 
you seem to prefer.)
If there's a problem with the array functions not being verbs (which, 
personally, I don't think is a huge issue as long as it is consistent), 
that should be addressed for the array functions as an entire set-- not 
for one particular one.


Re: the vote:
There is no point in redoing the vote at this point. If the vote does 
not pass as it is, that means either the community doesn't support the 
new feature or they don't support the proposed function name.
It's obvious, based on the current vote results, that the community does 
support the feature, so it is simply a matter of issuing a second vote 
if this one fails.


-Matt