Re: Re:[VOTE] array_key_first(), array_key_last(), array_value_first(),array_value_last()

Also voting no, and wished I had mailed earlier. Accessing the keys and values separately is not a good design in my opinion, as it leads to: > All four functions either return the requested key/value > or null if an empty array is provided. Having what looks likes valid values returned for array_value_first() and array_value_last() A think a better pattern would be to return a tuple as Levi suggested. [$key, $value] = array_first($array); [$key, $value] = array_last($array); For people not used to returning tuples.....you should branch out a bit and try using them. They are a better pattern to use when returning multiple values from a function that don't need/deserve their own class/struct creating. cheers Dan Ack On 9 July 2018 at 18:31, CHU Zhaowei <me@jhdxr.com> wrote: > I voted no. > 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. > > Regards, > CHU Zhaowei