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

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 9:27 AM Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@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 <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 This was not discussed, it was discarded. Enormous difference.