Hi, 2012/8/21 Levi Morrison <morrison.l...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net> wrote: >> Hi >> >> 2012/8/21 Tjerk Anne Meesters <datib...@php.net>: >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rasmus Schultz <ras...@mindplay.dk> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you, but this isn't really anything like what I had in mind. >>>> >>>> What I had in mind is more like set-semantics for arrays, e.g. designed to >>>> work with sets of distinct values/objects. >>>> >>>> Since I do not have permission to write on the wiki, I posted an initial >>>> draft here: >>>> >>>> https://gist.github.com/321ad9b4b8c4e1713488 >>> >>> >>> Just an idea, since array_delete() may remove multiple values, I would >>> change the return value to (int) and return how many elements were removed >>> from the array. >> >> Int would be better and callable should be accepted like array_walk(). >> It's better to have array_delete_recursive(), too. >> I updated the page. >> >> array_add() needs more discussion. >> What we should do with array value, accept callable or not, etc. >> >> Regards, >> >> -- >> Yasuo Ohgaki >> yohg...@ohgaki.net >> > > I'm against this RFC, but if you are going to even try to add > something, please keep it consistent! Don't modify `array_delete` to > take a callable, instead make a different function `array_udelete` or > something. >
Original proposal is adding array_delete() and this is under discussion. We don't have to add array_add() > And keep default $strict values consistent with existing functions > that have that parameter. Users should use array_walk() when they would like to delete element(s). To be consistent, it should be callable. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
