Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91095 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 78238 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2016 03:58:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Feb 2016 03:58:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=morrison.levi@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=morrison.levi@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.45 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.45 mail-vk0-f45.google.com Received: from [209.85.213.45] ([209.85.213.45:33029] helo=mail-vk0-f45.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E8/41-57549-B4F65B65 for ; Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:58:04 -0500 Received: by mail-vk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id k196so1531840vka.0 for ; Fri, 05 Feb 2016 19:58:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=oxPwCd7nsIR8vR0ZZgDz5G0dkUTxMJDwiBbDLKZejes=; b=cp4uN5eyQK1hkYwmFy4SvUiwujZ/pVsr6QfnZGXd+vLeo264njXt2SnWYKiNgZH3T/ iNghWrS84HEvwu2RKSSLXa6i9rBN79oG3mVWCKvHaC3ntb6bJFxgUvGnLCtY1/wtO+X/ dlQYZi28Rh9JSO4QR5E/HIYPA2wTrvMkMNu45CKYu80lxcPbQgf+wktPkd/3M8gcscJo o6Z8jNgtdSTK/A6F9216sIWhJnglKFQtzQM6Jf5JOguxGTXQ1xMYIAom82QchfY6INpA +9aQ58K9npDgi/mfG+wRLAVqx2MuEp6X9vaz7NfEApQBfscCHfan2NxdFwpPDgdznULU +erw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=oxPwCd7nsIR8vR0ZZgDz5G0dkUTxMJDwiBbDLKZejes=; b=Yv97YqecBfbyMu5w22HBF3SAzzKdyTy+j+69QZStisu91sw5SM4IeJTxhXBJpFFZRQ AnNUlpF2tL5HDgzeOD4Gf2ubkzEZJf0mwum5EBcWmgU4zMVCB12Q43odIDV9g/vFzNKY ECpwY1drzwFW14a2FrlSMnBQ7GX9csxnASVZqEXksyhFQ+23nI0k8x0gBlSwnbt31m2c Hhh3QgOy/EwwHfBr1yCCX/xJS6VFU9Q+9X9Zb1tSzukZbE3ueRfRf1IbGP4+oPZd+7Bp 0d0YeiQ98aT2DIZSv8azxXzURw60P3cl9Nrzo7n/CuervYWX28sJjKovCNmGEw4rMQ7X NlyA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSbdPxIysQh0uOetVbTqhTerhHfM+X+BtAbhx3s4MuWGgD5fXFaivB816vCZOGX2dmf76wCVqDPimEKxQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.172.135 with SMTP id v129mr11266787vke.154.1454731080643; Fri, 05 Feb 2016 19:58:00 -0800 (PST) Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com Received: by 10.31.34.3 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 19:58:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <38.31.07203.2EB94B65@pb1.pair.com> References: <38.31.07203.2EB94B65@pb1.pair.com> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 20:58:00 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: LF5ILjMd_TpE4ORcdZ8KrZubXYY Message-ID: To: Andrea Faulds Cc: internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Allow specifying keys in list() From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison) On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > Hi everyone, > > It's been more than two weeks since I first proposed this RFC, and there's > no outstanding issues preventing moving towards a vote. There's not yet a > language specification patch, but that can be done later. > > So, I'm opening the vote on this RFC today, 2016-02-05, and it'll close the > Sunday after next, 2016-02-14. The vote requires a 2/3 majority as it's a > language change. > > The RFC page is here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/list_keys > > Happy voting! > -- > Andrea Faulds > https://ajf.me/ > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php I wanted to chime in since I voted no. I'm not strongly opposed to this behavior but I do have concerns about the key behavior that was changed. In an example in the RFC: list($foo => $bar) = $array; I don't think this really makes sense. `$foo` is being evaluated and its value is used to look up the key in `$array`, but `$bar` is being assigned to even though it's a similar place as `$foo`. I don't think I've really expressed well what I am trying to convey but I think this RFC would be much better *without* this change, so I've voted no.