On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:16 AM Levi Morrison <le...@php.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 9:27 AM Christoph M. Becker <cmbecke...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 11.07.2018 at 17:19, Björn Larsson wrote:
> >
> > > Den 2018-07-11 kl. 02:41, skrev Levi Morrison:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:59 PM Pedro Magalhães <m...@pmmaga.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> 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
> > >> To safely use it a call to empty or count or something needs to happen:
> > >>
> > >> if (!empty($array)) {
> > >> $value = array_value_first($array);
> > >> // do something with $value
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> This is okay, but not great. Compare that to the design that returns a
> > >> tuple though:
> > >>
> > >> if ([$_, $value] = array_first($array)) {
> > >> // do something with $value
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> People who argue against the tuple because they don't like the design
> > >> need to consider the bigger picture. The tuple way is less code,
> > >> serves more use cases with fewer functions, and I even [implemented
> > >> it][1]. If the array destructuring behavior seems unclear we can
> > >> simply put an example in the manual pages for these functions --
> > >> problem solved.
> > >>
> > >> This is not how RFC feedback should be handled. I hope more people
> > >> vote no so we can reject this do it properly.
> > >>
> > > I do like this approach with two functions array_first & array_last
> > > returning
> > > a tuple. However, voting is underway and it looks like it will pass.
> > >
> > > I wonder what the RFC author (Enno W) thinks about that approach?
> >
> > This already has been discussed weeks ago, see
> > <https://externals.io/message/102245#102317>.
> >
> > --
> > Christoph M. Becker
>
> This was not discussed, it was discarded. Enormous difference.
As an example, it was claimed:
> If I use a function I expect it to give me a return value which I can
> use without any further post processing $wantedValue =
> fancyFunction($someInput);
But this isn't true even for the array_value_* functions. There must
be pre or post processing because of error conditions. This was
pointed out by myself and others, but it was still ignored.
This is what I mean by discarded, not discussed.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
