On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:49 PM Brandon Jackson <brandonja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only portion in your email I disagree with is this ending. I believe > there are enough use-cases where if the first value is "valid null" or > "default null" it won't matter. The developer will treat them both the > same. Perhaps you disagree with this and want to avoid ambiguity at all > costs. My proposal to avoid ambiguity would be throwing an exception > instead of involving the key because involving the key can be a composition > between `array_first()`* and `array_key_first()`. > > > > Although I would prefer the function to throw, I think it will have the > same effect as this key discussion: complicate something that can be > simple. If the developer needs to distinguish between "default null" and > "value null", they are able to do so by running `empty()` on the array > prior to asking for `array_first()`. It's actually better than a try/catch, > to be honest. > > Sure in many use cases undefined and null can be equivalent, but there > are other use cases and considering the fact that php does not have a > user level "undefined" value. It should at least attempt to not be > ambiguous when possible. Instead of being ambiguous by default, > requiring the user to do additional work to not be ambiguous. > > I do think the method is a great opportunity to avoid ambiguity, > without a huge sacrifice on cost. As you said, throwing an exception > would only further complicate things. Sure an empty check would get > the job done, but again I believe it should not require such > additional logic just to not be ambiguous. > My statement about throwing exceptions is, to me, exactly equivalent to the discussion of $key and $value. I believe being ambiguous is fine in this case. If we collectively decide that ambiguity is unacceptable, then my vote is on Exception over involving $key on `array_first()`. I would go as far to say that if the only option is to have `array_first()` returning $key and $value simultaneously, I probably would prefer if `array_first()` does not get implemented at all. > > * If naming is an issue to you, I'd also be fine with > `array_value_first()`. > If the rfc does maintain only returning the value > `array_value_first()` IMO is ideal. > * With array_first being so general, I would think it's only fair that > the naming is reserved for something that touches on multiple parts of > the array. > * If someone did want to open an rfc adding the above functionality > they would have to opt for something like array_first_key_value which > having a group of key/value operator methods `array_key_first`, > `array_first`, and `array_first_key_value` would be absolutely > atrocious IMO. > * Naming consistency with array_key_first would be nice. For new > comers to the language I think it is a reasonable assumption when you > see array_key_first being used. That array_value_first should also > exist that does the same thing for values, and array_first might be a > slight curve ball. > * They are going to do some googling and probably be pointed to some > outdated way of doing things, like using array slice or back to > array_key_first. As time goes on blogs and other places like stack > overflow will update there solutions, and or people will re-ask hoping > there's a more up to date/efficient solution, and hopefully then > someone will actually provide the latest answer of `array_first`. > Everything you mention about function naming I believe gets invalidated by Larry's comment regarding all of PHP `array_()` function family. They don't have `value` in their name when working with array values and they have `key` when working with array keys. With that, array_first() cannot be "consistent" with array_key_first() without being inconsistent with dozens of PHP array functions. Larry's comment is enough to close down the discussion on the function name as there's no room for anything other than `array_first()` in my opinion. -- Marco Deleu
