Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85051
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain eliw.com designates 69.195.198.246 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <5506D789.4080705@eliw.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 09:15:53 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CANUQDCjK7F1H5PZeV4XXvbDOsmyYtG4P1fPH3QnKBuY9EM-JdA@mail.gmail.com> <5504EF9D.1000707@gmail.com> <55064508.6050206@eliw.com> <CAGa2bXZJpvuinGGR4-X6Y8V7SxhjgJN3yuTmpM4M1msnf0CPYA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXZJpvuinGGR4-X6Y8V7SxhjgJN3yuTmpM4M1msnf0CPYA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="1J4smuoS86s0pVKfdC2ol35oeXRpKRmVq"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][PRE-VOTE] In Operator
From: eli@eliw.com (Eli)

--1J4smuoS86s0pVKfdC2ol35oeXRpKRmVq
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 3/15/15 11:05 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Eli <eli@eliw.com> wrote:
>> Currently, I can speak for myself, I almost always find myself doing a=

>> 'backup' step in coding.   Because in this situation my process become=
s:
>>
>> if ($zebra ... Oh wait, can't do that, need to use in_array
>>
>> if (in_array( ... Oh wait, what's the order of parameters again?  dang=
 it,
>> hit php.net or find a recent use.
>>
>> if (in_array($zebra,$zoo)) {} ... *shew*
>>
>> In the end, yes, you can argue that this is a small thing.   But I bel=
ieve
>> that the simpler cognitive path that one follows with this new syntax =
will
>> bring some great benefit to coders.
> This is one of the issue what I'm trying to fix by this RFC.
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/consistent_function_names
> This would be better fix for this issue.
> Note: I added parameter issue handling to the RFC.

However your proposal here (it's own merits aside), doesn't actually
address what I mentioned.  Since it still requires the use of a
'function first' phraseology instead of a more natural language one.

If anything, it actually might hurt this one specific case.  Because at
least now, the function has a logical process to it, if you think about
it.  IE:  in_array(what, array).     Whereas switched as your proposal
allows for:   array_in(what, array).   Means the function name is kinda
backwards comparatively.

Also, it reads as if it's something else.  I'd expect by natural
language, that array_in ... would look for an array in something.   Not
the other way around.

Eli

--=20
|   Eli White   |   http://eliw.com/   |   Twitter: EliW   |



--1J4smuoS86s0pVKfdC2ol35oeXRpKRmVq
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlUG14kACgkQUTBVzmoxCKKf9wCglTrUe264gbo+Wts8KOSZp0Wc
GCAAn2BDFvPi9/4OKrAEd5gdo2Ue5kPQ
=gviI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--1J4smuoS86s0pVKfdC2ol35oeXRpKRmVq--