On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Felix De Vliegher wrote: > 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).
Has this been added to trunk now? Or not yet? 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
