[RFC][VOTE] Allow specifying keys in list()

Morning,

1 - I'm not completely certain what you are referring too ... list() has
always felt a bit strange to me and this doesn't feel any stranger imo.
2 - Perhaps I agree, but perhaps I tend to think that it's because I'm
not used to looking at it yet.
3 - This isn't relevant at the moment.
4 - This is only example illustrative code.

It isn't always about how many characters you have to type ...

public function __construct(array $things) {
    $options = $things + $this->defaults;

    $this->apples = $options["apples"];
    $this->oranges = $options["oranges"];
}

This is a pretty common pattern ... I much prefer this:

public function __construct(array $things) {
    list (
        "apples" => $this->apples,
        "oranges" => $this->oranges
    ) = ($things + $this->defaults);
}

Not because it's less characters (although it is, by one), but because it's
more expressive.

Anyway +1 from me ... even if it's a bit late ...

Cheers
Joe

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:36 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com <
guilhermeblanco@gmail.com> wrote:

Here is my reasons for no:

1- Non-intuitive behavior
2- Hard to read code, takes more time to understand underlying logic/flow
3- YAANPI => Yet Another Alternate Named Parameters Implementation (when I
look at future scope)
4- Most common usage form (first example) still forces you to type almost
same amount of logic with less readability and little value

Regards,

Morning internalz,

As mentioned the future scope stuff is scary, but not enough on it's

own to vote no.

So I want to vote yes, but I'm just waiting to hear objections from no

voters, in case they thought of something I didn't ...

Cheers
Joe

Hi again,

There's been a lot of No votes on this RFC, but I haven't received much
feedback as to why. Would any of you mind sharing your reasons, if
possible? It would be helpful if I knew why people have voted against
it,
as then I might be able to modify the RFC to be more palatable, or
understand where I went wrong.

Thanks!

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/

--

--
Guilherme Blanco
MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com
GTalk: guilhermeblanco
Toronto - ON/Canada

Hmm, I have to disagree…

1. Just as intuitive as the whole list() construct. I don’t see where this particular addition adds any strangeness.

For your readability/hard to read code problem I think the RFC is just doing a bad formatting job:

list("name" => $this->name,
"colour" => $this->colour,
"age" => $this->age,
"cuteness" => $this->cuteness) = $attributes;

Would be how I’d format that. Makes it pretty obvious which keys are used (nice list from top to bottom) and makes it nicely visible what the origin array is, it being very prominently on the right.
And at that point (also that I only have to parse the origin array only once) it presents a nice readability improvement.

And the 3. point regarding future scope is irrelevant. It’s something this RFC would make possible, but it by far doesn’t mean that it will ever come - it’s just future scope. Ignore it.

Hence I ultimately think this RFC is a good idea.

Thanks,
Bob

Am 9.2.2016 um 16:36 schrieb guilhermeblanco@gmail.com:

Here is my reasons for no:

1- Non-intuitive behavior
2- Hard to read code, takes more time to understand underlying logic/flow
3- YAANPI => Yet Another Alternate Named Parameters Implementation (when I
look at future scope)
4- Most common usage form (first example) still forces you to type almost
same amount of logic with less readability and little value

Regards,

Morning internalz,

As mentioned the future scope stuff is scary, but not enough on it's
own to vote no.

So I want to vote yes, but I'm just waiting to hear objections from no
voters, in case they thought of something I didn't ...

Cheers
Joe

Hi again,

There's been a lot of No votes on this RFC, but I haven't received much
feedback as to why. Would any of you mind sharing your reasons, if
possible? It would be helpful if I knew why people have voted against it,
as then I might be able to modify the RFC to be more palatable, or
understand where I went wrong.

Thanks!

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/

--

--
Guilherme Blanco
MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com
GTalk: guilhermeblanco
Toronto - ON/Canada

Bob