Hi niel,
On 15.06.2018 at 17:37 niel wrote:
What is the behaviour if the array does not exist? From the current
RFC it appears it would return null? Wouldn't it be better to return
false for this situation?
Thanks for the comment. Why do you think false would be a better return
value?
C
On 13/06/18 20:26, Enno Woortmann wrote:
Hello internals,
I've changed the status of the currently introduced RFC to add the
functions array_key_first() and array_key_last() to "Under Discussion".
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_key_first_last
Regards,
Enno
What is the behaviour if the arr
On Friday, June 15, 2018 9:54:48 AM CDT Theodore Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> > I think if people want to use strict matching, they'll quite likely want
> > to
> > have it on all cases. Something like "strict switch ($expr) {}" or "switch
> > strict ($expr)
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> I think if people want to use strict matching, they'll quite likely want to
> have it on all cases. Something like "strict switch ($expr) {}" or "switch
> strict ($expr) {}" or "switch (strict $expr) {}" or "switch ($expr) strict
> {}" or "sw
On 15 June 2018 at 14:48, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
> Might I suggest a new strictwich ($a) { ... } keyword? It's much more
> appetizing.
>
Or maybe we should follow the pattern of == vs === and double up the "s":
"sswitch ($a) { ... }"
;)
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
On 15/06/2018 00:10, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
With current tendency to move to more strict interpretation and a bit
away from type juggling, I think it has its place. But I am not a big
fan to putting === there, it looks weird. Maybe go a bit further and
make the whole switch strict?
strict swi
2018-06-15 11:44 GMT+02:00 Christoph M. Becker :
> On 15.06.2018 at 08:36, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>
> > Am 14.06.2018 um 10:35 schrieb Nikita Popov:
> >
> >> It might make sense to introduce an entirely new "match" statement
> >> that conforms a bit more with how switch-like strictures are
> >>
On 15.06.2018 at 08:36, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Am 14.06.2018 um 10:35 schrieb Nikita Popov:
>
>> It might make sense to introduce an entirely new "match" statement
>> that conforms a bit more with how switch-like strictures are
>> implemented nowadays. That is, something like
>>
>> match ($e
On 14 June 2018 at 23:15, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Would both be more apparent as to its meaning and leave the door open
> > for other uses. Though at that point, tbqh, I think `switch ($a) use
> > (===) {...}` gives better visual isolation.
>
> I don't think we should reuse the use
