On 17-mrt-2010, at 19:09, Derick Rethans wrote: > 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?
No, it makes more sense to use the boolean return values, I was just using your fseek() analogy. Although I still find it useful to return the seeked value, and false when seek fails (basically how next(), reset() and friends behave). Johannes: If we decide on the details, if this something I could commit in 5.3 or do you rather want me to wait until 5.4? Cheers, Felix -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
