# [RFC][VOTE] array_change_keys - Thread: https://externals.io/message/97584 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/97584 - Started by Colin O'Dell on 2017-01-08T14:21:30+00:00 - Messages: 5 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #97584 — Colin O'Dell — 2017-01-08T14:21:30+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/97584#97584 Greetings all, It's been a while since we introduced the array_change_keys RFC . During the discussion period there was a healthy mix of interest and critique. It seems all the major discussion points were covered, so I'd like to put this RFC to a vote to determine its fate. Therefore, voting is now open on the array_change_keys RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_change_keys Voting will close 2017-01-23 at 23:59:59 UTC. Mailing list discussion thread: https://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=146452769326964&w=2 Reddit discussion thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/4ll1hg/rfc_array_change_keys/ The implementation is also on 3v4l.org should you wish to test it out. Regards, Colin O'Dell --- ## #97585 — Marco Pivetta — 2017-01-08T14:43:58+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/97584#97585 · In reply to: #97584 Hi Colin, Voting NO for the following reasons: * Can be a userland function/library, unless there are huge performance benefits that justify it being in core * Doesn't work with `iterable` * New warnings. No, please, we want `Throwable`: warnings are terrible * Semantics for merging duplicate keys should be part of the function name, or a parameter (the former being better, having a strict version that fails, and a merging version that overwrites) * I totally forgot that I benchmarked this before :-\ https://github.com/Ocramius/array_change_keys-benchmark Marco Pivetta http://twitter.com/Ocramius http://ocramius.github.com/ > Greetings all, > > It's been a while since we introduced the array_change_keys RFC > . During the discussion > period > there was a healthy mix of interest and critique. It seems all the major > discussion points were covered, so I'd like to put this RFC to a vote to > determine its fate. > > Therefore, voting is now open on the array_change_keys RFC: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_change_keys Voting will close 2017-01-23 > at > 23:59:59 UTC. > > Mailing list discussion thread: > https://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=146452769326964&w=2 > > Reddit discussion thread: > https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/4ll1hg/rfc_array_change_keys/ > > The implementation is also on 3v4l.org should you wish to test it out. > > Regards, > > Colin O'Dell --- ## #97587 — Kalle Sommer Nielsen — 2017-01-08T15:38:40+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/97584#97587 · In reply to: #97585 Hi Marco 2017-01-08 15:43 GMT+01:00 Marco Pivetta : > * New warnings. No, please, we want `Throwable`: warnings are terrible Only really chiming in for the warnings part; warnings should not be a blocker for a new feature, because it would create an inconsistency with that function and the rest. If we were to implement a Throwable technique for such, then it should be done for everything instead, like all ext/standard or ext/whatever and that is a lot of work, we just need someone to start the movement if it is so desired. -- regards, Kalle Sommer Nielsen kalle@php.net --- ## #97638 — Colin O'Dell — 2017-01-09T19:40:09+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/97584#97638 Due to concerns that have not been adequately addressed during the discussion period, and mailing list issues which might be impacting the ability to discuss the RFC and/or its vote, I'd like to halt voting and revert this RFC to "Under Discussion". Are there any objections to this? > I kindly request that this voting be delayed until the mailing list > issues are completely fixed. > > The mailing list software still rejects some messages with URLs; this > was seemingly fixed but I am unable to send any messages with URLs in > them, including quoting the original message. --- ## #97661 — Colin O'Dell — 2017-01-10T13:15:29+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/97584#97661 · In reply to: #97638 Hearing no objections, voting is now halted and the RFC is back to "Under Discussion". Cheers, Colin > Due to concerns that have not been adequately addressed during the > discussion period, and mailing list issues which might be impacting the > ability to discuss the RFC and/or its vote, I'd like to halt voting and > revert this RFC to "Under Discussion". Are there any objections to this? > > > > I kindly request that this voting be delayed until the mailing list > issues are completely fixed. > > The mailing list software still rejects some messages with URLs; this > was seemingly fixed but I am unable to send any messages with URLs in > them, including quoting the original message.