Re: [RFC Update] array_str_contains(): Removal of performance benchmark tests

در تاریخ چهارشنبه ۱۶ سپتامبر ۲۰۲۶، ۰۰:۵۵ Larry Garfield < larry@garfieldtech.com> نوشت: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2026, at 10:53 AM, سپهر محمودی wrote: > >> Hi internals, > >> > >> It has been 3 days now and no one has agreed on running the benchmark > tests for my function. > >> > >> If there is no agreement on keeping the benchmarks within the next 2 > days, the benchmarks will be completely canceled for my function. > >> > >> I look forward to hearing your valuable feedback. Also, this thread is > not just for the benchmarks of this function; you can share any valuable > feedback or thoughts you have regarding my function in this thread. > >> > >> With respect, > >> Sepehr > > I'm pretty sure the reason no one has looked at your benchmarks is no one > supports this function. I don't believe I've seen a single person agree > with you that it's useful. You have just been flooding the list with > messages assuming this function will be the greatest thing since sliced > bread, across multiple threads for no apparent reason. You've already been > advised, both on list and off, on an alternate approach for your specific > use case. It seems obvious to me that PHP-Internals is just not interested > in this functionality. Period. > > Whether you're using AI or not, your posts are not helpful or constructive > and people are tired. > > It's OK to have a proposal rejected. Even very experienced long time > contributors have ideas declined early on. It is part of the process, and > that's OK. Pushing and pushing and pushing after it's clear that it's not > going to happen is not a part of the process. It's just a waste of > everyone's time. > > Please stop wasting everyone's time. > > --Larry Garfield > --------- Hi Larry, I need to clarify a few points regarding your email. First, you initially set providing benchmarks as a primary condition for this RFC. Later, in private, you told me they weren't necessary. Now, claiming that these benchmarks are invalid or non-existent completely contradicts your own initial request. As for performance, I’ve already conducted a real-world usage analysis, and the JSON results are documented in the RFC. They clearly show that this function outperforms the alternatives you suggested. Given the documentation and the results, I cannot accept your assessment that the benchmarks are invalid. The performance of this function is proven.. Regards, Sepehr