On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:17 PM Kamil Tekiela <tekiela...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am against adding these functions, but for different reasons than Sara > and George. > If we add str_left and str_right then there should be a corresponding > variant in mbstring. The byte-string functions are rarely useful. Adding > these functions to mbstring unnecessarily complicates the extension for > little to no gain. > So you seem to relate to Christoph's (and Rowan's) point. > Another point is that if we decide to add them, then we will bikeshed > forever in an unresolvable manner about the name. Should it be called > str_left or strleft? Current functions don't have a naming convention, so > using either variant will be wrong. > To be fair, most "strxxx" functions were historically more-or-less copied from C; most recent additions have been "str_xxx". > Personally, I find substr to be more clear about the intent. I know that I > am asking for a part of the string. Whereas str_left doesn't convey an > action immediately. Without knowing its purpose I wouldn't know if it will > pad the string from the left, strip characters from left, or take the > leftmost part of the string. > True, I can also imagine bikeshed like "str_leftmost", "str_start", "str_first[_n]" (and same for rightmost/end/last)... > Don't take it the wrong way, but I think it's a waste of time to implement > a function that doesn't even need a polyfill in the userland. > > Regards, > Kamil > -- Guilliam Xavier
