Have you considered that perhaps you're trying to use the wrong
language for what you're doing? PHP does what it does now consistently
(in this regard) - what you're suggesting breaks that consistency. To
gain what, exactly?
On 19 March 2010 17:07, mathieu.suen <mathieu.s...@easyflirt.com> wrote:
> Right I could work around the issue with the return by reference without any
> problem.
> I am still thinking that if you try to write a meta-circular interpreter you
> gonna work very hard
> to make this subtleties worked. And according to "Shriram Krishnamurthi" in
> his textbook PLAI:
>
> " a truly powerful language is one that makes it easy to write its
> meta-circular interpreter."
>
> -- Mathieu Suen
>
>
>
> Ionut G. Stan wrote:
>>
>> I guess what Mathieu is trying to say is that this:
>>
>> class Foo
>> {
>> public $bar = array();
>> }
>>
>> $foo = new Foo;
>> $foo->bar[3] = 1;
>>
>> var_dump($foo);
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ...is inconsistent with this:
>>
>> class Foo
>> {
>> public function __get($property)
>> {
>> if (! isset($this->$property)) {
>> $this->$property = array();
>> }
>>
>> return $this->$property;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> $foo = new Foo;
>> $foo->bar[3] = 1;
>>
>> var_dump($foo);
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ...or even this:
>>
>> class Foo
>> {
>> private $bar = array();
>>
>> public function __get($property)
>> {
>> return $this->$property;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> $foo = new Foo;
>> $foo->bar[3] = 1;
>>
>> var_dump($foo);
>>
>>
>> Now, I'm not really sure this is that bad, as there may be use cases where
>> one would like to return different values every time __get is called. And,
>> as I wrote in a previous email, there are ways to work around this
>> inconsistency by using return by reference, so everybody can be happy. I
>> think.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/19/10 4:56 AM, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:47 PM, mathieu.suen
>>> <mathieu.s...@easyflirt.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Peter Lind wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On the contrary, it's quite obvious what's going on. In both examples
>>>>> __get() returns an array as PHP would normally do it (i.e. NOT by
>>>>> reference) which means that if you try to modify that you'll end up
>>>>> modifying nothing much. However, in your second example, the point at
>>>>> which you call __get() indirectly comes before the assign to the zork
>>>>> array - hence, the $this->zork['blah'] = 'blah'; no longer indirectly
>>>>> calls __get as object::$zork now exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, this is down to you confusing passing a variable by
>>>>> reference and passing it by value: PHP normally passes arrays by
>>>>> value, so when __get() returns an array, you're working on a copy of
>>>>> the array you returned. As someone noted earlier, you can easily
>>>>> change the behaviour of __get to return variables by reference, should
>>>>> you want to. However, I personally wouldn't want this to be default
>>>>> behaviour as that would make debugging apps much more annoying -
>>>>> things should be consistent, even if consistency at times confuse
>>>>> people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
<hype>
WWW: http://plphp.dk / http://plind.dk
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/plind
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fake51
BeWelcome: Fake51
Couchsurfing: Fake51
</hype>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
