Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Add new function `array_group`

> On 1.6.2023, at 09:18, Casper Langemeijer <langemeijer@php.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023, at 01:19, Boro Sitnikovski wrote: >> Thank you for the information and encouragement! I was a bit scared of this one being >> rejected too, but still decided to give it a shot :) > > As an alternative approach this is what I would do in your situation: > > I would start with a PHP implementation, gather some opinions on what this method would do, how > it should work. Finalising the functional specification to a point where you find broad acceptance. > This would also allow others to help performance optimise your implementation. > > Then start a PECL extension implementing the exact same thing in C code. This could start as a > niche for people that really need the extra performance the extension would bring, possibly grow out > to something that is defacto standaard. > > PECL extensions are documented in the PHP manual, so the manual could have your array_group() > function described, possibly with a reference to the original PHP implementation/ polyfill. > > This approach minimises dependence on internals giving a green light and maximises the > possibility to work with others as a team on this. It would give you a chance to prove that the > solution you provide is actually wanted by users. If that really is the case, if it came to vote to > merging the extension into PHP itself the vote could be different than the vote on the former RFC. > > Greetings, Casper Thank you for the suggestion, I like this approach and it's definitely much "safer" than going with an RFC for core directly. What are your thoughts on creating a PECL extension called array_utils (selling point would be high performance array utils or something), which in the future might contain more than array_group*, and the approach would be to cherry-pick those functions that have frequent usage in codebases into core? Or would it be better to stick to a particular/more concrete extension?