# [RFC] Add is_assoc_array() function - Thread: https://externals.io/message/130115 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130115 - Started by Muhammed Arshid KV on 2026-02-21T02:35:11+00:00 - Messages: 6 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · RFCs at https://externals.io/rfc.md · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #130115 — Muhammed Arshid KV — 2026-02-21T02:35:11+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130115#130115 Hi internals, I’ve proposed a small RFC to add *is_assoc_array(array $array):* bool to the PHP core. RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/is_assoc_array The function detects associative arrays using internal storage *(HT_IS_PACKED)*. Similar helpers exist in frameworks, and a native version would be faster and more consistent. No BC breaks. No impact on SAPIs or OPcache. Feedback welcome. Thanks, Muhammed Arshid --- ## #130116 — Bob Weinand — 2026-02-21T02:43:44+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130115#130116 · In reply to: #130115 Hey, > > Hi internals, > > I’ve proposed a small RFC to add |*is_assoc_array(array $array):* > bool| to the PHP core. > > RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/is_assoc_array > > The function detects associative arrays using internal storage > *(|HT_IS_PACKED|)*. > > Similar helpers exist in frameworks, and a native version would be > faster and more consistent. > > No BC breaks. No impact on SAPIs or OPcache. > > Feedback welcome. > > Thanks, > Muhammed Arshid > What's the difference between the negation of `array_is_list()` and is_assoc_array()? Bob --- ## #130117 — mickmackusa — 2026-02-21T03:46:35+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130115#130117 · In reply to: #130116 The fact that this RFC doesn't even mention PHP's already available native function (array_is_list() - which performs the inverse) indicates that this initiative is under-researched. This is the second email of this type frim you in a short period. Please be mindful that a lot of people are subscribed to this mailing list. Suggesting low-value RFCs actually strains human resources and impedes progress. If you want to create wrapper functions with names that you personally prefer, please create your own library and share that with the public. Please only submit RFCs for discussion after performing loads of research to ensure that what you want to suggest is actually worth suggesting. Mick --- ## #130118 — Ben Ramsey — 2026-02-21T04:24:26+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130115#130118 · In reply to: #130115 > Hi internals, > > I’ve proposed a small RFC to add *is_assoc_array(array $array):* bool to > the PHP core. > > RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/is_assoc_array > > The function detects associative arrays using internal storage > *(HT_IS_PACKED)*. > > Similar helpers exist in frameworks, and a native version would be faster > and more consistent. > > No BC breaks. No impact on SAPIs or OPcache. > > Feedback welcome. > > Thanks, > Muhammed Arshid > Your implementation is pretty much the inverse of `zend_array_is_list()`,[^1] so you could probably simplify it with the following (note the negation operator (`!`) in front of `zend_array_is_list(array)`. PHP_FUNCTION(is_assoc_array) { HashTable *array; ZEND_PARSE_PARAMETERS_START(1, 1) Z_PARAM_ARRAY_HT(array) ZEND_PARSE_PARAMETERS_END(); RETURN_BOOL(!zend_array_is_list(array)); } For the sake of consistency, I would change the name of the function to `array_is_assoc()`. Cheers, Ben [^1]: https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/da6d890e00d56fd0d842e844aeac03baf7e47f17/Zend/zend_hash.h#L1602-L1633 --- ## #130127 — tim@bastelstu.be — 2026-02-22T18:06:13+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130115#130127 · In reply to: #130115 Hi > I’ve proposed a small RFC to add *is_assoc_array(array $array):* bool to > the PHP core. > > RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/is_assoc_array Besides what the others have already mentioned: Please make sure to fill in the RFC template carefully. Quite a number of sections still contain placeholder values with instructions as to how the section is supposed to be filled in. The “Voting Choices” section is a particular obvious example here. With regard to the “RFC Impact” section, the RFC mentions: > Such functions can be replaced with the built-in implementation. This is not necessarily true. The existing userland function might behave differently to the proposed function. Even though adding new functions is not considered a BC break as per our policy, there is an expectation to do some research as to what the impact of adding the function would be. Please include this research, the RFC template provides some advice on how to do that. Please also make sure to include a link to the ML discussion in the References section for future reference. The correct link is this one: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130115 Best regards Tim Düsterhus --- ## #130145 — Muhammed Arshid KV — 2026-02-23T22:31:42+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130115#130145 · In reply to: #130127 I updated the RFC. > Hi > > > > […] > > Besides what the others have already mentioned: Please make sure to fill > in the RFC template carefully. Quite a number of sections still contain > placeholder values with instructions as to how the section is supposed > to be filled in. The “Voting Choices” section is a particular obvious > example here. > > With regard to the “RFC Impact” section, the RFC mentions: > > > […] > > This is not necessarily true. The existing userland function might > behave differently to the proposed function. > > Even though adding new functions is not considered a BC break as per our > policy, there is an expectation to do some research as to what the > impact of adding the function would be. Please include this research, > the RFC template provides some advice on how to do that. > > Please also make sure to include a link to the ML discussion in the > References section for future reference. The correct link is this one: > https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130115 > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus