[VOTE] Voting opens for str_starts_with and ends_with functions

For those voting against adding these functions, can you clarify why?
Do you dislike how they are named, or do you not see the need for the
case insensitive versions, or is there an issue with the implementation?

I believe that star_with/end_with is useful, but not in this form.
The standard library has 98 string functions with different naming styles.
Adding 4 more (8 for mb_) functions for actually two(one?) tasks is redundant.

I think that more discussion is needed.

My preferred variants:

1. One function

str_contains(
    $haystack, 
    $needle, 
    [CASE_INSENSITIVE|FROM_BEGIN|FROM_END|MULTI_BYTE] = 0, 
    [$encoding] = utf8
)

2)Or two

str_starts_with(...see above, but without FROM_BEGIN|FROM_END)
str_ends_with(...see above, but without FROM_BEGIN|FROM_END)

Best regards,Andrey

For those voting against adding these functions, can you clarify why?
Do you dislike how they are named, or do you not see the need for the
case insensitive versions, or is there an issue with the implementation?

I believe that star_with/end_with is useful, but not in this form.
The standard library has 98 string functions with different naming styles.
Adding 4 more (8 for mb_) functions for actually two(one?) tasks is
redundant.

I think that more discussion is needed.

My preferred variants:

1. One function

str_contains(
    $haystack,
    $needle,
    [CASE_INSENSITIVE|FROM_BEGIN|FROM_END|MULTI_BYTE] = 0,
    [$encoding] = utf8
)

2)Or two

str_starts_with(...see above, but without FROM_BEGIN|FROM_END)
str_ends_with(...see above, but without FROM_BEGIN|FROM_END)

Best regards,Andrey

Please don't switch behaviours via flags: separate names and
implementations are much clearer and much simpler to follow.

Yes, you will have multiple variations, but that's fine.