On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Felix De Vliegher wrote: > On 17-mrt-2010, at 17:52, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Felix De Vliegher wrote: > > > >> On 17-mrt-2010, at 17:27, Frederic Hardy wrote: > >>> > >>> Why not use arrayIterator::seek() ? > >> > >> Because the functionality isn't exactly the same. > >> ArrayIterator::seek() only sets the array pointer, array_seek would > >> also return the value + have fseek()-like functionality with the > >> SEEK_* consts and optional negative offsets. > > > > To be honest, I'd rather have the proposed array_seek() return a status > > whether the seek worked or not. Notices are uncool and you can already > > retrieve data/key with key() and current(). > > > > Update: http://phpbenelux.eu/array_seek-return.patch.txt > I've kept the fseek()-style return values (0 when fine, -1 when seek fails)
Any reason why you picked that over the (IMO more logical) true/false approach? with kind regards, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
