> On Jun 2, 2021, at 7:07 PM, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021, at 5:59 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 2021, at 4:25 AM, Jordi Boggiano <j.boggi...@seld.be> wrote:
> 
>>> IMO for unshift() it'd be fine to return a new array, but when processing a 
>>> list of things in a FIFO pattern I often used array_shift() to get the 
>>> first "job" out of the array. If $array->shift() returns a new array then 
>>> how do I access the first item?
>> 
>> That is a really excellent point, something I did not think to consider 
>> given how rarely I use array_shift().  
>> 
>> But your comment causes me to ponder a number of follow up questions, 
>> some of which are tangential.  If any reader feels these tangents are 
>> worth discussing please make another email and quote my relevant 
>> comments so we can have a dedicated thread for each.
>> 
>> 1.) Given Nikita's position that it would only be viable to offer a 
>> syntax that simulates method calling for arrays if the methods 
>> themselves are immutable can you envision a solution for allowing  
>> $array->shift() functionality that would address getting both element 
>> and shifted array without resorting to by-reference parameters?
> 
> $list->head() (returns first item)
> $list->tail() (returns all items but the first one)

I assume $list->tail() would still have the O(<n>) problem in PHP, though?

-Mike
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to