Re: Expose compare_function() to userspace

On Thu, September 30, 2010 9:44 am, Adam Harvey wrote: > Unrelated to the Comparable RFC, are there any objections to adding a > function that simply wraps compare_function()? It's depressingly > common to end up writing a construct like the following in comparison > callbacks, so I think we might as well encapsulate the pattern in an > actual function: > > if ($a < $b) { > return -1; > } > elseif ($a > $b) { > return 1; > } > return 0; > > If I don't hear kicking and screaming in the next few days, I'll slip > this into trunk. I can provide a patch/RFC in advance if there's > demand, but it'll be about as simple as you imagine. :) > > The one thing that I would like bikeshedding^Wfeedback on is the name: > cmp() makes the most sense to me, since it lines up well with Python > and (to a lesser extent) Perl, but if there are concerns about > potential name clashes with existing code, may I suggest > var_compare(). Get your votes and/or suggestions in! I don't really think we need this in core. I mean, yeah, I may have written the same function a few times, but it's not exactly brain surgery. (which I've been through so I know :-) Except for handling non-int input, which you probably won't do in the core function anyway... Seems kind of a pointless bloat to this developer. -1 PS It should be INT_cmp if it takes INT. Or num_cmp or number_cmp var_cmp et al would imply any sort of var... Though I guess using < and > means it would do whatever those operators do for Objects, strings, or resources... Which I wouldn't even want to try to predict and rely on anyway. -- brain cancer update: http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/search/label/brain%20tumor Donate: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FS9NLTNEEKWBE