Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: array_change_key_case()? key_exists()? From: Egon Schmid (eschmid <email protected>)
Date: 11/11/01

From: "Jeroen van Wolffelaar" <jeroen <email protected>>
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Egon Schmid wrote:
> >
> > > Please revert that patch from Jeroen. I have something about
> > > undocumented functions.
> >
> > done with pleasure.
>
> The reason for (temporarily at least) commenting them was to
prevent
> users from learning from that function without a proper discussion
> wether they really belong in PHP. Once they are documented,
there's just
> another BC problem created. So please do not revert it until
properly
> discussed. I didn't have the chance to respond to various
arguments yet.
>
> Egon and Goba: this is just while the discussion is going on, if
it's
> decided that they should stay as it is now, you can uncomment it
again
> tomorrow - what does a day make on a function not being documented
for
> months?

It is complete nonsense. Gabor have discussed it with Andrei. Derick
have reverted it and you have removed it with comments again.

You can have a full time job if you want all undocumented functions
documented. It should be easy, but not every developer follows some
rules.

> Okay, to the discussion itself:
>
> (array_)key_exists: As Andi said, there is a reason why isset
behaves
> like it behaves now. IMO, I see two possibilities:
> (a): if that reason isn't valid anymore, let's fix isset in stead
of
> adding another function
> (b): if it IS valid, then why would key_exists be useful and good,
IMO
> key_exists should follow isset(), rendering it superflueous.
>
> array_change_key_case:
>
> Well... there be performance issues, but no matter what, a more
> general-use function should be created - if one. For example a
> array_walk like function which applies a random function to each
key.
> (doesn't array_walk already support this?)
>
> So I'm still quite against array_change_key_case, for
array_key_exists
> there might be good arguments in favor, I didn't yet read them,
but
> even.
>
> I recommented those functions just to prevent a "It's in the
manual now,
> you cannot revert it, because of BC" closing of this discussion
which is
> definitely something undesireable.
>
> --Jeroen
>
>
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar
> Jeroen <email protected>
> http://www.A-Eskwadraat.nl/~jeroen
>
>