Re: in_array() 4.0.0 -> 4.0.2

Andrei wrote: > I can add the fourth option, no problem. A fourth option would be nice. I am happy to follow the general consensus, whatever it may be. Andrei also wrote: > You just have to ask yourself > if that's what you really want and whether array pointer movement should > be on by default or not. I think that the default behavoiur should not alter the internal pointer. I agree that the name in_array does not imply any ``other'' effects. So ``other'' effects should be optional. What do you think? Cheers, David.