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

On 11.07.2018 at 18:16, Levi Morrison wrote: > 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: >> >>> 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>. > > This was not discussed, it was discarded. Enormous difference. Well, there was some discussion. Particularly noteworthy, was Rowan's post[1] which pointed out that the behavior of list is *undocumented*, and Larry's post[2] which strongly advises against “multi-returns”. And finally, as I understand it, the actual proposal that is put to vote is what the RFC *author* wants to propose. There is no strict necessity to deal with any suggestion for improvement. After all, it's up to the voters whether a particular RFC will be accepted or rejected. If anybody dislikes a certain RFC, they are free to point out their concerns, and to vote against the RFC. Period. [1] <https://externals.io/message/102245#102326> [2] <https://externals.io/message/102245#102326> -- Christoph M. Becker