Re: Proposal: Adding an ARRAY_FILTER_REINDEX fla g to array_values

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021, at 8:11 AM, tyson andre wrote: > Hi internals, > > Currently, array_filter will always return the original keys. > This often requires an additional wrapping call of > array_values(array_filter(...)) to reindex the keys and return a list. > (or applications may not realize there will be gaps in the keys until > it causes a bug or unexpected JSON encoding, etc.) > > PHP is also more memory/time efficient at creating packed arrays than > it is at creating associative arrays. > > What are your thoughts on adding ARRAY_FILTER_REINDEX, to > ignore the > original int/string keys and replace them with 0, 1, 2, ... > > ``` > php > echo json_encode(array_filter([5,6,7,8], fn($value) => $value % 2 > > 0)); > {"0":5,"2":7} > // proposed flag > php > echo json_encode(array_filter([5,6,7,8], fn($value) => $value % 2 > > 0, ARRAY_FILTER_REINDEX)); > [5,7] > ``` > > https://www.php.net/array_filter already has the > int $mode = 0 which > accepts the bit flags ARRAY_FILTER_USE_KEY and ���� > �!�mT7ARRAY_FILTER_USE_BOTH > These could be then be combined with the proposed bit flag > ARRAY_FILTER_REINDEX, e.g. to filter an array based on both the > array > keys and values, and return a list without gaps. > (and if $callback is null, this would return a list containing only the > truthy values) > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Tyson In cases where I do want it reindexed, the existing array_values() is fine in most cases. Creating small, purpose-built tools that are easily composed is generally the right strategy. The only time I could see a flag being a better alternative is when the memory difference would be huge. Do we have a sense for how much of a memory difference we'd be looking at by combining it into a single operation? (There's also the grossness of nesting functions inside each other, but the answer to that is pipes, not more flags.) --Larry Garfield