On 17.07.2012, at 21:03, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> This idea has been proposed many times in the past and it is actually >> a very good proposal, for array, string or other types. > > If we have "$array->foo()", we should also have "class foo extends > array" which allows to override foo() in array. This will require some > serious changes, which need to be RFCed and reviewed and seen if they > can really fit the language properly. Just saying "let's bolt on method > calls on top of arrays" is definitely not very good. Having OO Array > type may be good, if we will be able to figure out suitable design that > will allow the same flexibility and power as regular arrays - though I'm > not sure how to do it now. > >> The only reason why it is not yet implemented is the technical >> complexity to do it. We need pseudo objects and the likes, and it is >> really not something easy to do, in an efficient enough way. > > I disagree - I do not think we need pseudo-objects. If the only point of > the exercise is to convert a call of array_pop to $array->pop, it's not > worth it. It'd just make the language more messy - you wouldn't know > what -> means anymore.
+1
I am for making array a proper class with methods.
"Legacy" functions can be implemented as wrappers around it:
function array_push(&$array, $value)
{
$array->push($value);
}
There is absolutely no sense in creating new "pseudo object" entity. It would
just add tons of confusion.
p.s. in case of array, we already have http://docs.php.net/ArrayObject which is
a good starting point
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
