Yeah except in what I'm saying it's optional
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 at 14:16 T.J. Crowder <tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Naveen Chawla <naveen.c...@gmail.com>
> > 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] 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