On Mon, Feb 8, 2021, at 6:37 PM, Kamil Tekiela wrote: > Hi Tyson, > > Thanks for the RFC. I have to say that I like the core concept and the > motivation behind it. However, let me explain why I voted No. > > 1. As others have said I think that the scope is too small. If we are going > to create that namespace then I would like to see more functions/classes in > that namespace. > 2. I don't like the name. I know the namespace might provide some guidance > of what the function is, but namespaces are often imported. What we are > left with in the code is then `any()`/`all()` that doesn't have a > self-describing name. any_values is better but still doesn't describe the > action that the function will take. I am a strong believer that methods and > functions should be called with verbs which describe an action. e.g. > search, filter, combine, merge, etc. There can always be exceptions but > there should be a good reason to justify such an exception.
The naming is fine, I think. any(), all(), first(), etc. have long-standing meaning in multiple languages. As long as we're using them consistently with convention I don't think there's any reason to introduce longer names, especially when, if done correctly, the stuff in this namespace would be highly chainable and give us a close-enough to comprehensions. Short-sweet-but-clear is a good guideline on this one. --Larry Garfield -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
