Re: [RFC][DISCUSSION] Collection Inspection

On Monday, January 29, 2018 6:46:10 PM CST Michael Morris wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> > > wrote: > > Really, these functions would be useful only on arrays, period. To allow > > them > > on anything else is just dangerous, and on other iterables there are > > better, > > more robust approaches (as discussed elsewhere in this thread). > > > > As you've demonstrated they're also quite compact and effective to do in > > user- > > space, so unless there's a massive performance difference of moving them > > to C > > they don't seem all that appropriate to add to the language directly. > > > > --Larry Garfield > > Didn't you personally raise the issue of hard dependencies doing this sort > of functionality creates? Implementable in userland or not, this is pretty > low level functionality. I don't recall doing so in this thread, but I most likely have on some other issue. It's the sort of comment that I would make. :-) However, that's for a very commonly used function where just inlining it is prohibitive. As you've demonstrated below, this functionality is easily a one liner, and it's a one-liner in an assert statement most likely. > Hmm.. If limited to arrays only then array_filter with count is pretty > close to what we want. > > assert(count(array_filter($a, is_string)) === count($a)); > > That's not optimal though - granted assert code doesn't *have* to be > optimal, but that's still a wordy construction. Personally I think that's fine, and doesn't need a language-level utility function to wrap it any further. (Yes, that's a subjective metric. So are most statements about what should[n't] be included in the language itself. Others are welcome to disagree, but this falls below my threshold of necessity.) --Larry Garfield

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] This is a digitally signed message part. signature.asc