On 18 June 2013 23:21, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you saying that it's better to have familiarity over functionality? > > I'm not sure I agree with this premise of we shouldn't provide > better functionality just because it would make all the other poorly > written functions look bad. That's setting a lower bar of standards, isn't > it? > > In this case, I have a strong doubt that the "better functionality" will be used, nor that it is indeed "better" at all. I also much prefer, aesthetically, the _key() API over appending a flags parameter: though that is likely, largely due to the familiarity mentioned earlier. Quite frankly the simpler, more familiar approach looks best to me. Also, please don't put words into my mouth: nowhere did I say, "we shouldn't provide better functionality **just because it would make all the other poorly written functions look bad**" (emphasis mine). I appreciate you having an alternative viewpoint, but try not to see what isn't there. What I *was* saying is that the other functions are there, they do a great job and have been for a long time. Why not make use of that array-function-muscle-memory; put it to our advantage? To swing over to the other side of the fence, I do see that the flags-based approach would "work" just as well in terms of getting the functionality out there. It is something I have thought about adding previously for a number of other functions. The closest being adding PREG_GREP_KEY to preg_grep(), which already has (only) PREG_GREP_INVERT. For that function, a new flag would be the best option. For array_filter(), I'm not convinced at all.
