Hi
On 10/25/26 14:38, Ayoub EZZINI wrote:
I'd like to start the discussion on a new RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_partition
Thank you for your RFC. Incidentally a co-worker has hand-written an
`array_partition()` just last week (using two `array_filter()` calls),
so clearly there is some appetite for it.
I've just read the RFC and noticed a small rendering issue in the
“Semantics in detail” section. For the “An empty input” bullet point it
seems you didn't properly escape the code and it was interpreted as Wiki
markup.
For the arity example, you could add that `is_string(?)` with PFA’s `?`
placeholder should work, since it behaves like a userland function.
For the “why not a general grouping function” section, I would like to
point towards the declined
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/destructuring_coalesce RFC, which is somewhat
related to the “The buckets are only created when at least one element
falls into them” argument.
For the “Backward incompatible changes” section, I'd like to note that
even for users defining `array_partition` with a `function_exists()`
check nothing guarantees that their custom implementation behaves the
same, so they would need to adjust their code either way. This is
acknowledged in the second paragraph, but the initial paragraph is
somewhat misleading. In any case, adding new symbols is not considered a
breaking change as per policy and the arguments for the proposed name
are strong, so this is not a hard blocker (but must be mentioned
nevertheless, as you did).
Perhaps it would also make sense to extend the stub in the proposal
section to a full “userland polyfill” (using the foreach loop), similar
to what the `array_find()` RFC did. This can help make the behavior
clear in a way that pure prose can't.
Other than these small polishing nits, I don't have anything to remark
about the RFC other than: It's a well-written, well-researched and
well-argued RFC and I'm in favor of the proposal.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
