> > In my opinion we should have functions which take comparator and/or > equality functions as parameters even if we can override these > operators.
I really like this idea, because it puts the responsibility of the definition on the caller. It allows you to do things like "Is there an instance of X in this array that has a value of Y greater than Z". This is probably a candidate for a separate proposal though, perhaps even in favour of this one. In saying that, I still believe that there's a place for dynamic comparison and equality if used responsibly. I see the primary value in objects that have a specific, obvious value, such as money or dimensions. On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 at 08:43, Levi Morrison <morrison.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:39 AM Levi Morrison <le...@php.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 1. You can't override the behaviour of `<`, `<=`, `>`, `>=`, `==`, `!=` > > > with a userland implementation. > > > 2. Therefore, you won't be able to affect the internals of array > functions > > > like `in_array`, `sort` etc. > > > > In my opinion we should have functions which take comparator and/or > equality functions as parameters even if we can override these operators. > I'd like to see an outline of such a plan as part of this RFC or as a > precursor to it. > > (I know some already have this option, such as usort, but we don't > have an `in_array` that takes an equality callback, correct?) >
