On Wed, May 26, 2021, at 4:31 PM, Sara Golemon wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 2:36 PM Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> wrote: > > > On May 26, 2021, at 2:34 PM, Sara Golemon <poll...@php.net> wrote: > > > > > > What I don't like about the specific proposal is that it's just a little > > too magic in its function selection and argument mapping. There's also the > > fact that it doesn't leave room to improve specifics about the > > implementations of the methods. I'd much rather seen an `Array` class > > defined with specific methods declared on it. > > > > > > Wouldn't an `Array` class necessarily result in array-incompatible > > pass-by-reference semantics, which is one of the same issues with userland > > using ArrayObject as an array replacement? > > > > > It would if the Array objects got returned. I'm instead picturing an > instance that magically comes into being solely for the duration of the > method call. Once the method returns, the object vanishes. > > -Sara
It sounds like you're describing something more akin to "extensions" in C#, or the way trait impls work in Rust, or the way methods get defined in Go. (All of which would be quite neat, but I don't know how they'd play nicely in PHP.) --Larry Garfield -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
