> 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
