Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78682
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 198.187.29.245 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
In-Reply-To: <E336496D-4FEB-4B99-ABA6-AFF0F42E5339@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 20:55:27 +0000
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EFE6858A-9D6B-466F-A3AF-45630ACDBCE8@ajf.me>
References: <CAGAGxbY+2G8zOWkHW7t_QhvFSFM=QLY7tSWJpGc8tAgpraLm-w@mail.gmail.com> <E336496D-4FEB-4B99-ABA6-AFF0F42E5339@gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Additional splat operator usage
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)


> On 4 Nov 2014, at 18:14, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On 3 November 2014 22:45:11 GMT, Chris Wright <daverandom@php.net> =
wrote:
>> Good evening list,
>>=20
>> I'd like to open discussion a relatively simple and clear-cut RFC,
>> either
>> people will like it or they won't, there isn't a lot more to say here
>> than
>> what's in the RFC so please have a read.
>>=20
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/additional-splat-usage
>=20
> I like the concept with list-style arrays, but find the behaviour with =
regards associative arrays quite confusing. There's already a difference =
in behaviour between array_merge and + in this regard, and having a =
third way of writing the same thing isn't great - it would apparently be =
legal to write $foobar =3D [...$foo, ...$bar]; to simply merge two =
existing arrays.
>=20
> If anything, I think I would expect the keys of splatted arrays to be =
discarded, since it seems most natural to use this in a list context, =
but I can imagine always having to check in the manual.

I don=E2=80=99t think they=E2=80=99d be discarded. The named parameters =
RFC proposes that named keys be kept by ..., and I=E2=80=99d prefer we =
do that since it makes more sense anyway: [=E2=80=98foo=E2=80=99=3D>=E2=80=
=99bar] and [...[=E2=80=99foo=E2=80=99=3D>=E2=80=99bar=E2=80=99]] should =
act the same, no?

Also, since arrays don=E2=80=99t discard duplicate keys normally, ... =
shouldn=E2=80=99t.

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/