Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:67730
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg3XxL-OaFkkVf2ejoLf03pU_h-sMcuR0qwuh-Ly-KjJmkc7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL+t6cEMqyvV5EwWipOACouJiTwzyWzVvnce7WoMRetQNe+OAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMT4Nqg-spRjHGde4vDBRUM1wa2zUVC9SrBzeQURMQBSW6vQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL+t6cHuUEbQMYsaYnYvGtP5O1Y5OU6niZN4nHjumEGB6VLU-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHMUw2EdVKpHA10mbR=AR2GAOcA2=fBVbhyRskswOf=ZVC64gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL+t6cGR03xBUFRZK6Foixa6gx3Kj24_HiQxFAs4Seka-s70aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ26g5TMDtyN+UN6g2V83hcduTet58SYtavtq5TmtcqyK5XACg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL+t6cFbbWJkJsFxnENZQodSCxo06LDKs=uzchp2m0EvBL0kqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg3XxL-OaFkkVf2ejoLf03pU_h-sMcuR0qwuh-Ly-KjJmkc7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:21:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL+t6cGhM2v1yjxxQo=Yqt+mUwXNZDCufM+9ia0wgOD=_Xs6nQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com>
Cc: Patrick Schaaf <bof@bof.de>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	Tjerk Anne Meesters <datibbaw@php.net>, Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f50335a33a2ba04df7523ae
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PR 287 - added use_keys argument to array_filter() [Discussion]
From: theanomaly.is@gmail.com (Sherif Ramadan)

--e89a8f50335a33a2ba04df7523ae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 18 June 2013 18:24, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Nevertheless, I'd say go with a new array_filter_key() function, because
>> > that permits using existing one-parameter functions like that strlen as
>> a
>> > callback, instead of forcing two-parameter callback functions.
>> >
>> The current patch does not force the callback to take two arguments. By
>> default the existing behavior is maintained since the third argument is
>> false by default. I still don't hear a good argument for adding a new
>> function.
>
>
> I'm very much on the "new function" side of the fence. Basic (one-word)
> arguments for this include familiarity and simplicity.
>

Are you saying that it's better to have familiarity over functionality?

I'm not sure I agree with this premise of we shouldn't provide
better functionality just because it would make all the other poorly
written functions look bad. That's setting a lower bar of standards, isn't
it?


> Familiarity, since we're used to *_key functions for arrays. It will come
> as absolutely no surprise to see the _key function spring up out of nowhere
> and its use is blindingly obvious for anyone who has ever used
> array_filter(). Simplicity since, err.. what were those flags again? is it
> $key first or $value? is there an ARRAY_FILTER_BOTH? Also, I don't pretend
> my time with PHP covers everything that everyone has ever done or wanted to
> do, but I cannot think of a time when I wanted to filter an array on both
> the key *and* the value at the same time: of course, it's easy to make up
> use cases.
>

--e89a8f50335a33a2ba04df7523ae--