Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85340
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zort.net designates 96.241.205.2 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
In-Reply-To: <550C90C7.2020103@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:44:10 -0400
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <4D39BE57-ADE7-43D8-9230-A9BDAB14F345@zort.net>
References: <CAAn=CzWySWQU1D93WA7L2eHvd31zogekEHmDUOsN7P6kBK4VrA@mail.gmail.com> <550B5A81.1090706@gmail.com> <550C8879.70002@gmail.com> <A26C2DC6-9BF0-4A16-A99E-0F72524A73C9@zort.net> <550C90C7.2020103@gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC - Array slice syntactic sugar
From: jbafford@zort.net (John Bafford)


On Mar 20, 2015, at 17:27, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> =
wrote:

> Hi!
>=20
>> I provided an array_key_first() implementation awhile ago that was
>> first shot down because =93too many array_* functions=94, and then =
later
>> ignored because I didn=92t want to go through the RFC process just to
>> add a few functions. (PR here:
>> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/347)
>=20
> Adding array functions definitely requires and RFC process, arrays are
> primary data structure in PHP that stores practically everything, so
> having good API for them is essential. It's not that hard to make an
> RFC, and given that you propose a change which literally concerns
> millions of sites and developers, it's only to be expected that some
> formal description and discussion of the proposal is required.

Fair enough. Expect to see an RFC once the window for 7.1 opens.

>=20
>> If people are generally interested in having an
>> array_key_(first|last|index) implementation, I can dust off that PR,
>> update it for master, and if we really need an RFC, I=92ll prepare =
one
>> for PHP 7.1.
>=20
> I imagine we do need an RFC for something like that. First element can
> be easily accessed with reset and each/current, but the last one is
> harder to access without modifying. So maybe it's be a good addition.
> There's a lot of time till 7.1 yet so you could definitely make a good =
RFC.

reset + each/current modifies the array pointer, though, so it=92s =
unfortunately not quite that easy.

-John