Yes, I remember. It was not for fun. I agree that this is a low priority feature just now while many important issues are to be solved.
On 26/11/05, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Marian, > > have a guess. Di we do this change for fun? Actually we found some nasty > tricky problems. > > marcus > > Saturday, November 26, 2005, 1:48:15 PM, you wrote: > > > Hm, strange. It used to work some months ago. My idea is to throw away > > the need of an interface for overrideing [] just like it is for ->. If > > you mean that C coding will be a problem...I don't know but since we > > were able to specify return by ref or not by ref a few months ago > > (before the fix), I suppose it is possible to be reimplemented. The > > advantage of this implementation would be quite good not just for me > > but for many people that benefit from the many new excelent OO (and > > overriding) features of PHP. > > > > > On 26/11/05, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hello Marian, > >> > >> that wouldn't buy you anything becasue even if we would allow single > >> overrides we would have to enforce ref or non ref return. > >> > >> marcus > >> > >> Saturday, November 26, 2005, 4:13:03 AM, you wrote: > >> > >> > Maybe magic implementation was a better idea for [] overrieding like > >> > for __get, __set, __isset and __unset stuff. For example __offsetGet, > >> > __offsetSet, __offsetUnset and __offsetExists (or __offsetIsset). This > >> > way people will be free using return by ref or not and also may > >> > implement only some of the methods, e.g. only __offsetGet. > >> > >> > On 25/11/05, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Hello Oliver, > >> >> > >> >> feel free to write an interface that supports return by reference and > >> >> be > >> >> done. > >> >> > >> >> Having ArrayAccess in use we had to chose one of two possibilities. > >> >> First > >> >> go with return by reference and second go with return by copy. We chose > >> >> return by copy simply because that was the intended use anyway. That it > >> >> was > >> >> possible to add return by reference to its signature was an error in the > >> >> first place. Actually one that we mentioned very early. But this is > >> >> again > >> >> ignorance and maybe not writing every tiny piece of change n some > >> >> document > >> >> that nobody reads anyway. And oh it is in th NEWS file. > >> >> > >> >> marcus > >> >> > >> >> Friday, November 25, 2005, 8:47:44 PM, you wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Sara Golemon schrieb: > >> >> >> ArrayAccess interface for the dimension read/write. > >> >> > >> >> > Just to bring the issue up agaian: The current ArrayAccess > >> >> > implementation does not allow for proper simulation of arrays. This > >> >> > has > >> >> > been "broken by fixing" (tm) the method prototypes not to allow "&" > >> >> > anymore in interface implementations where the interface doesn't > >> >> > specify > >> >> > a "&" for the corresponding method and at the same time not changing > >> >> > ArrayAccess to feature a "&" for offsetGet. > >> >> > >> >> =>> You can't do > >> >> > >> >> > $ArrayAccesImplementingObject['virtual offset'][]='test'; > >> >> > >> >> > for offsets that are arrays. > >> >> > >> >> > OLLi > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Best regards, > >> >> Marcus > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > >> >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > -- > >> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > >> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
