If structs were even somehow interchangeable with "real" arrays, that might be a really useful side gain:
$white = new Color(1, 1, 1); $red = $white->r; // it's a struct $green = $white['r']; // it's an array $type = $white['__struct']; // => 'Color' $array = ['r'=>1, 'g'=>1, 'b'=>1, '__struct'=>'Color']; $blue = $array->b; // it's an array, but it still works like a struct You see where I'm going with this? I imagine the implementation could be something along the lines of checking for the '__struct' key when somebody attempts to use method-call syntax on an array, invoking the appropriate method with $this referencing the array you were using. The rest of the time, a struct, for all intents and purposes, is just an array. I'm sure it's a lot more complex than it sounds, but probably simpler than attempting to "extend" arrays into structs or trying to "hide" the struct type-name in an internal array property somehow. Being able to juggle the types by accessing a reserved key might actually be a benefit? On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Rasmus Schultz <ras...@mindplay.dk> wrote: > > See the "Structs Tutorial" at msdn for a brief summary of structs in C# > - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa288471(v=vs.71).aspx > > Looking at that code sample, yes - that is more or less exactly what I had > in mind. > > I take back my last remark - I don't think the similarity in syntax is > confusing; what is confusing, is the way it works now... because there are > certain types that we just naturally think of as being values, not objects, > even if they have object syntax. > > I don't know C very well, and I certainly don't know the PHP codebase very > well, but do you think it's feasible to internally piggyback structs on > arrays? > > If structs were even somehow interchangeable with "real" arrays, that > might be a really useful side gain: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Richard Bradley < > richard.brad...@softwire.com> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de >> >wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > structs as in c# don't have methods, however DateTime has them. so >> > > this doesn't work. What you can do is just pass all the data in the >> > > constructor and then don't change it, and you have your value type >> that is immutable. >> > > It just requires a bit self control. >> > >> > On 04 April 2013 23:59, Rasmus Schultz <ras...@mindplay.dk> wrote: >> > >> > You're right, struct isn't the right word - "value" is probably more >> accurate. >> >> Actually "structs" in C# can have methods. They are exactly classes with >> value type semantics (i.e. pass-by-value, like arrays in PHP). >> >> I think "struct" would be an ideal name for this feature, as this >> proposal matches the C# implementation very closely, and many people will >> be familiar with that. >> >> See the "Structs Tutorial" at msdn for a brief summary of structs in C# - >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa288471(v=vs.71).aspx >> >> >> >> Richard Bradley >> Tel : 020 7485 7500 ext 3230 | Fax : 020 7485 7575 >> >> softwire >> Sunday Times Best Small Companies 2012 - 6th in the UK >> Web : www.softwire.com | Addr : 325 Highgate Studios, 53-79 Highgate >> Road, London NW5 1TL >> Softwire Technology Limited. Registered in England no. 3824658. >> Registered Office : 13 Station Road, London N3 2SB >> >> >
