Why bloat the core library of functions when you can perform: $randomValue = $array[array_rand($array)]; Am I missing the point?
I don't think there is a real need for this personally it's just language bloat. Look at Java (I know it's very different) but it provides a huge amount of "built in" functions and is not any better off for it. Sam On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Yahav Gindi Bar <g.b.ya...@gmail.com>wrote: > > On 23 ביול 2012, at 19:05, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > > > Andrew, > > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > >> > >> (resending because of broken formatting) > >> > >> Hi there, > >> > >> I apologise for my previous email. It was a disorganised mess that > didn't > >> really > >> make the case for that function very well. So here's a proper proposal > >> (perhaps > >> too proper?). > >> > >> Introduction ------------ > >> > >> I am proposing a function, named array_pick(), which takes a single > (array) > >> argument, and returns a random value from it. > >> > >> Implementation -------------- > >> > >> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/142 > >> > >> Specification ------------- > >> > >> mixed array_pick(array $array); > >> The function returns the value of one random array element from $array. > >> Should > >> said array be empty, then it should return NULL. > >> > >> Rationale --------- > >> > >> - array_rand exists, however it only gets a random key, not a random > >> value. This > >> is the logical counterpart for API completeness > >> - array_pick is more convenient than $a[array_rand($a)], especially for > >> these > >> cases: > >> - short array syntax + array_pick, e.g. > some_func(array_pick(['foo.png', > >> 'bar.jpg', 'foobar.gif'])) vs $a = ['foo.png, 'bar.jpg', 'foobar.gif']; > >> some_func($a[array_rand($a)]); > >> - where using long names or nested arrays, e.g. > >> some_func(array_pick($foo['bar']['foobar'])); > >> - array_pick is less wasteful than shuffling an array and taking the > first > >> element > >> - $a[array_rand($a)] issuse a NOTICE from an undefined index if the > array > >> is > >> empty, but array_pick() just returns null, which is more convenient > >> - I need this function myself quite often. It exists in two other > >> languages I > >> use that I can think of off the top of my head (Python, Game Maker > >> Language) > >> > >> Objections ---------- > >> - PHP has too many functions > >> - Yes, but that doesn't mean we can't add more. Otherwise we can't > >> improve > >> things and move forward. > >> > > > > Broken Window Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory > > > > Saying things are already broken is never a valid justification for > > breaking things further. > > > > > >> - This can be easily implemented in userland code/this is too frivolous > to > >> warrant addition > >> - This is true, however similarly to a lot of standard library > >> functionality, > >> it is used frequently enough that it is silly to have to rewrite it > every > >> time > >> it is needed > >> > > > > It's a one-liner. It's not like it's non-trivial, or there are weird > > edge-cases, or security implications. It's a one line implementation: > > > > function array_pick(array $array) { > > return empty($array) ? null : $array[array_rand($array)]; > > } > > > > > >> - It is also the logical counterpart to array_rand(). One for a key, > one > >> for a > >> value. > >> > > > > Again, since it's so trivial to implement, why is it needed? Symmetry is > a > > decent goal, but justified symmetry. Not just symmetry for the sake of > it... > > > > > >> - The name isn't logical > >> - Whilst you could argue that array_rand_key is a better name, I have > >> chosen > >> array_pick because it is shorter, and has a similar name to similar > >> functions in > >> Python (random.choice) and GML (choose) > >> > > > > Actually, I think that array_pick() is a poor name. Python's name makes > > sense, because it's bound to the random namespace. But being bound to the > > array namespace indicates a different thing. I would argue that > > array_random_value() would be a better choice (or any one of a number of > > names)... > > > > > >> --- > >> Thoughts? > >> > > > > Shared. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Anthony > > > It's a one-liner. It's not like it's non-trivial, or there are weird > > edge-cases, or security implications. It's a one line implementation: > > > > function array_pick(array $array) { > > return empty($array) ? null : $array[array_rand($array)]; > > } > > array_rand() is also trivial and one length long function, but it exists > in the language and it is really useful. > I don't think that one should think about "how much line it takes to write > it", you should think about "does many people use this function quite often > in order to make it part of the language". > Personally, I think that this function is great, and when I read for the > first time about array_rand() I thought it'll returns a value, after I > realized it returns a key, I looked for a value pair and surprised to see > that there's no value pair. > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
