Hi Tyson, Thanks for the RFC. I have to say that I like the core concept and the motivation behind it. However, let me explain why I voted No.
1. As others have said I think that the scope is too small. If we are going to create that namespace then I would like to see more functions/classes in that namespace. 2. I don't like the name. I know the namespace might provide some guidance of what the function is, but namespaces are often imported. What we are left with in the code is then `any()`/`all()` that doesn't have a self-describing name. any_values is better but still doesn't describe the action that the function will take. I am a strong believer that methods and functions should be called with verbs which describe an action. e.g. search, filter, combine, merge, etc. There can always be exceptions but there should be a good reason to justify such an exception. 3. I am unclear about the implementation itself. There aren't that many clear examples in the RFC. For example, I don't understand why the second parameter is nullable and optional. How is it different from array_filter? 4. Please, no more loose checks. I don't want to have the same trouble as with `in_array()`. Kind Regards, Kamil
