On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Naveen Chawla <naveen.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to propose an enhancement to my proposal:
> ...
> It offers the same functionality, but in addition a second
> optional parameter for the "value" in case you want something
> other than the array element as the value. By default, if the
> second parameter isn't populated, it should use the array
> element itself, like the example call redundantly passes.

This is part of why Darien's proposal and my suggestion from [my first
reply in this thread][1] are complementary: That's exactly what you get
with Darien's, by returning `[key, value]`. Conflating them makes each of
them unnecessarily complicated in my view.

-- T.J. Crowder

es-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to