On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:31 PM CHU Zhaowei <m...@jhdxr.com> wrote: > I don't think we have an agreement on dealing with non-existing value, and > the way this RFC proposed, just returning null without any notice/warning, > is wrong IMO. I know we already do this in other array_* functions, but we > cannot keep making mistakes just because we already made same mistake. >
I voted no for the same reason. I'd even say that introducing a new array_ function that still accepts non arrays just to return null with a warning doesn't make sense at this point. With that said, I'd gladly vote yes if there would be a way to distinguish array_value_first([]) from array_value_first([0 => null]). Regards, Pedro
