Re: [RFC] [Discussion] array_get and array_has functions

Hi Am 2026-04-20 17:18, schrieb Larry Garfield:

Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing here. Tim, you're suggesting that this: $a = ['foo' => 'bar']; $val = array_path_get($a, ['foo', 'bar', 'baz']); Should error rather than returning null?

Yes.

If the array were clearly, consistently, and properly structured, we could reliably just do $a['foo']['bar'] and move on with life. […] So in that sort of case, I'm not sure it's useful to distinguish between "There is no baz key on the array at foo.bar" and "foo.bar is a string, not an array, wat?" […]

The goal of the RFC is replacing $a['foo']['bar'] where the *path is dynamic*. Quoting right from the introduction of the RFC:

When the structure of the array is known in advance and the exact element to retrieve is hardcoded, existing PHP syntax works well […]

And quoting further from the introduction:

array_path_get() retrieves a value from a deeply nested array and returns a default value if the path does not exist.

I'm arguing that a “(value at) path does not exist” is something fundamentally different from “value encountered on path cannot be traversed further”.

converting to an object

I agree that the correct solution in the general case is “use a proper object mapper” (such as Valinor) and don't see much personal value in having the proposed functions. But if they exist, I would want them to behave as safely as possible and that includes erroring if they cannot make sense of the data. Emitting a Warning when encountering an improperly typed value across the path would also work for me, but I suppose that others won't be in favor of *that* :-) Best regards Tim Düsterhus