Hi Marcus. > long ago we decided against supporting it in the array functions.
Ok, thanks. Could I ask what the reasons were (Alternatively get a pointer to the discussion)? Regards, Terje > best regards > marcus > > Wednesday, September 13, 2006, 8:39:57 AM, you wrote: > > > Hi all. > > > (Again, I've searched the archives, but haven't found anything on this one) > > The ArrayAccess interface allows one to essentially overload the index > > operator "[]" [1], which is nice, as it makes it possible to implement > > things like type-checked associative arrays, variants, tuples, etc. However, > > you can't use it with any of the built-in array functions (such as count(), > > or the array_*-functions), which means you have to either: > > > 1. Have something like an "as_array()" member function, returning a > > reference to the embedded array, and call this every time you need to call > > one of these functions, or: > > > 2. Implement the functions as member functions on the object. > > > Both of these solutions are rather inelegant, and in particular, 2. leads to > > unnecessary code bloat, and both gives a different calling convention > > compared to ordinary arrays, which can surely confuse readers of the code. > > > My question is: Has it been considered changing the standard library > > functions that take an array as a parameter, to be able to take an object > > implementing ArrayAccess/IteratorAggregate, also? Would it perhaps be a very > > large change? That would be understandable, given that it could mean the > > library having to be able to call into user code (the object being passed). > > However, this is done elsewhere, too, such as foreach(). > > > I know the inability to return a reference is well known. However, has there > > come to a consensus about how to solve it (or if)? It tends to trip up code > > using these "arrays" a lot... Sometimes, you get no change in the array, as > > it turns out it operated on a copy of an element, rather than the built-in > > array. > > > Regards, > > > Terje > > > [1] Since ArrayAccess essentially means overloading the index operator, I'm > > wondering how this have gone through, since some members of the development > > team (Andi?) appears to have very strong feelings against operator > > overloading...? -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
