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

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 <mail@pmmaga.net> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:31 PM CHU Zhaowei <me@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