Re: [PATCH] array_fill: Allow an array to specify keys

Hello Matt, thanks for the update best regards marcus Saturday, July 15, 2006, 1:25:25 PM, you wrote: > Hi Marcus, > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marcus Boerger" >> Hello Matt, >> >> Thursday, July 13, 2006, 12:28:27 PM, you wrote: >> >> There's two ways. First as you mentioned sending them as plain text files. >> And second editing the CVS/Entries file in that directory and adding this >> line: "/array_fill_keys.phpt/0/dummy timestamp//". >> >> However that's for your next patches, i added the function to HEAD and 5.2 >> after experimenting with it and mofifying it a tiny bit. I allow empty >> arrays as that is easier for user code. Also this is inline with the >> ability of array_fill() to specify parameter num as zero. >> >> Best regards, >> Marcus > Thanks for the CVS info and adding the function! > I was just updating the function (and tests) for HEAD when you added it, to > make it consistent with the changes Andrei has been making (inc. to > array_fill yesterday): > http://realplain.com/php/array_fill_keys-1.1.diff > http://realplain.com/php/array_fill_keys-1.1.phpt > Besides using parse_parameters instead of get_parameters_ex, array_fill also > changed the handling of "val" passed by reference -- notice > SEPARATE_ZVAL(val) is now gone compared to 5.2. I also marked it "U"nicode > compatible, and simplified the code for filling the array, following what > Andrei did with array_combine yesterday. > I agree about allowing empty arrays, but I was just making it consistent > with array_fill(), which actually *doesn't* allow parameter "num" as 0: > "Number of elements must be positive" > Just to clarify what I mean, the code I updated only applies to HEAD (to > save Andrei from fixing it ;-)). The 5.2 version is OK I guess (unless you > *want* to "simplify" the array filling loop), other than it being > inconsistent with array_fill as far as returning an empty array. > Thanks again, > Matt > P.S. Oh, no big deal, but in the NEWS file, you put "Mathew W" instead of > "Matt W" or "Matthew W" (2 t's ;-)). And the W is for Wilmas, but the > initial is fine; it doesn't matter to me what's there. Best regards, Marcus