6

I'm working on an implementation of a webform decoder and am looking to support the nested webform pattern employed by PHP and Ruby/Rails (possibly amongst others).

PHP: parse_str(); Ruby: Rack::Utils.parse_nested_query()

I've noticed some inconsistencies, for example (behaviour is the same in both languages):

foo=One&foo=Two
=> {'foo':'Two'}

foo[][bar]=One&foo[][bar]=Two
=> {"foo":[{"bar":"One"},{"bar":"Two"}]}

Here identical keys are discarded if at the top-level, but respected if at they exist lower down.

Is the rationale behind this design documented anywhere? Was the Ruby/Rails approach based on the PHP design (or vice-verca)?

closed as primarily opinion-based by amon, Thomas Owens Mar 19 '18 at 23:10

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    @RobertHarvey the differences in syntax and philosophy are irrelevant for the purposes of this question: their handling of webforms (in terms of map, array and string primitives) they are remarkably similar. I'd like to know why. – rgchris Mar 19 '18 at 22:33
  • 5
    @RobertHarvey 'why did some language designer make some design decision' is not a meaningful question —isn't that the purpose of this site? – rgchris Mar 19 '18 at 22:37
  • 4
    One purpose of this site is to answer questions about software design. But we cannot tell you why one language or framework designer made one choice and another made a different choice. We would be guessing. Unless, of course, the language designers just popped in to answer the question. A question that only specific people can answer isn't a good fit. – Thomas Owens Mar 19 '18 at 23:12
  • 3
    If you have a problem, please take it to Meta. But we cannot answer this question here. Our speculation on what these language designers were thinking would be opinions. – Thomas Owens Mar 20 '18 at 0:20
  • 5
    I disagree with the hold. Almost any question of the form “what is the rationale for design pattern X” could conceivably get a biased, opinionated reply, but I would see that asthe fault of the reply-er. The phrasing, “Is the rationale behind this design documented anywhere?“ seems to alliw for fact-based answers, “yes, here it is...” or, “not that I could find” – joel.neely Mar 20 '18 at 19:50