Hi Levi Morrison, > > Hi internals, > > > > Voting has started on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/any_all_on_iterable and ends > > on 2021-02-22. > > > > This RFC proposes to add the functions `PHP\iterable\any(iterable $input, > > ?callable $callback = null): bool` and `PHP\iterable\all(...)` > > to PHP's standard library's function set, using the namespace preferred in > > the previous straw poll. > > > > There is a primary vote on whether to add the functions, and a secondary > > vote on the name to use within the `PHP\iterable` namespace. > > > > Thanks, > > - Tyson > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > Thanks for the RFC. I have voted no, even though I am very supportive > of the direction. My objections are: > - I think the scope is too small. This is introducing a new family of > functions, but is only proposing two functions. This is too small to > firmly root in good design and precedence.
I misread your earlier comment in https://externals.io/message/111756#111764 My general stance on this is similar to https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/4cb3466e42063be00ece0cdb296c0b1336eb81c0/rfc_etiquette.md#dont-volunteer-other-people-for-huge-amounts-of-work I have limited time, and this has generated a lot of discussion. I'm concerned that adding more functionality initially would add questions like "Do we really need to add `none()` if we already have `!any()` and "I voted against this because I don't see the need for `chunk()`, `reversed()`, `filter()`, etc. (or disagree with one of the implementation details)" > - I do not like the chosen namespace. This is not as important as the > previous point, but still factored into my decision as we are still > very early in choosing namespaces for internals. I don't want to vote > for something I think is a bad direction when we're this early on. > > Again, I am supportive of adding these functions in some form, but I > very strongly do not believe this RFC is what we should do. And you're strongly opposed to the global namespace. https://externals.io/message/112558#112598 An unrealistic hypothetical worst-case scenario would be where half of voters vote against any new categories of functions in the global namespace, and half of voters vote against any new categories of functions outside of the global namespace, and nothing achieves a 2/3 majority in php 8.1. > I tried to collaborate with Tyson more on these points but either we > mis-communicated or he wasn't interested. In any case, it's up for a > vote so I choose "no." I disagreed. My decision was based on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/any_all_on_iterable_straw_poll_namespace#vote I strongly feel that this should be based on feedback from voters as a whole when we're this early in namespacing discussions, or the namespacing discussion would continue as "maybe this was the wrong choice of namespace." Thanks, - Tyson -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
