Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:67720
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL+t6cHuUEbQMYsaYnYvGtP5O1Y5OU6niZN4nHjumEGB6VLU-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL+t6cEMqyvV5EwWipOACouJiTwzyWzVvnce7WoMRetQNe+OAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMT4Nqg-spRjHGde4vDBRUM1wa2zUVC9SrBzeQURMQBSW6vQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL+t6cHuUEbQMYsaYnYvGtP5O1Y5OU6niZN4nHjumEGB6VLU-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:28:41 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NohZtXhU5YvNgs-AQyFikm2aeakynQDKqNKTB=9ru0GFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly.is@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c68202d163c04df6f5e6c
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PR 287 - added use_keys argument to array_filter() [Discussion]
From: morrison.levi@gmail.com (Levi Morrison)

--089e013c68202d163c04df6f5e6c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly.is@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm starting up a thread for discussion on Pull Request 287
>>> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/287 (allowing array keys to be
>>> passed
>>> to the callback function of array_filter through a third optional boolean
>>> argument). I would like to merge this into master and as discussed on IRC
>>> it would probably be a good idea to startup a discussion and make sure
>>> there aren't any objections or clarifications not yet voiced.
>>>
>>> The patch has no BC because the third argument is optional and defaults
>>> to
>>> false. Personally, I have always thought it would be a good idea to be
>>> able
>>> to get the keys into the array_filter callback since I've stumbled
>>> across a
>>> few scenarios where that would have made things easier.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if there are any particular down sides to this option being
>>> added, but none that I can find. It currently passes all tests in master
>>> and works as expected.
>>>
>>> Thoughts, opinions, objections, concerns?
>>>
>>>
>> It might be considered a BC break, but I really think we should drop the
>> boolean argument; just have it pass the key as parameter 2 always.
>>
>
>
> See the discussion on github for that PR
> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/287#issuecomment-14175109 unfortunately
> we can't do that as it will break lots of userspace code that might be
> doing stuff like array_filter(['foo','','bar'], 'strlen') where strlen only
> accepts a single argument and in those cases the result will be triggering
> lots of warnings and failed code.
>

If `strlen` can't handle extra parameters then I'd say *that* is a real
problem, this PR aside.

--089e013c68202d163c04df6f5e6c--