Functionality updates to array_column()

I've just submitted the following pull request for updates to the
array_column() function:

https://github.com/php/php-**src/pull/331https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/331

I asked about these changes on the #php.pecl IRC channel a few weeks ago,
and others on the channel agreed that it was best to go ahead and submit
these changes while PHP 5.5 is still in beta, since these would potentially
create BC breaks once 5.5 is in RC or GA stages.

I might be wrong here, but I thought beta was a feature freeze. Is it not?

I'm not certain of the proper process for handling these changes, though.
Do I need to update the RFC to account for these changes? Would I then need
to call for another vote?

The changes are detailed on the PR, but I'm reproducing that description
here, for the sake of discussion:

This pull request updates the array_column() function to support the
following new functionality:

• Maintain original index association if no third parameter
• Second param should be optional to use entire rows as result
• Support array of column names for second parameter

Here are more detailed descriptions of the additional functionality:

Maintain original index association if no third parameter

If no third parameter is passed, the resulting array maintains the indexes
passed in from the original array. Feature suggested by David Zülke.

Second param should be optional to use entire rows as result

When NULL is passed as the second parameter, all columns from the input
array are returned. See https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?**id=64493https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=64493

Support array of column names for second parameter

If the second parameter is an array of column names, each row returned in
the result array is an array containing only the specified columns. The
rows are indexed by the third parameter. Feature inspired by suggestions
from Hakre and Craig Campbell. See https://github.com/php/php-**
src/issues/257#issuecomment-**12594630https://github.com/php/php-src/issues/257#issuecomment-12594630

Thanks,
Ben