On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Aaron Piotrowski <aa...@trowski.com> wrote:
> > I plan on bringing the iterable RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/iterable) > to a vote in about a week, does anyone have any further feedback on this > proposal? > Was there any discussion about a special allowance being made for stdClass? I've noted the is_iterable(new stdClass) example and ensuing "Object Iteration" section: PHP allows any object to be used with foreach. However, iterable does not > accept any object, only those implementing Traversable. Values accepted > by iterable should be designed for iteration, not any set of values (such > as the public properties of an object or a string). > I'm on the fence if that second sentence applies to stdClass. Based on how users typically end up with stdClass instances (e.g. casting arrays to an object, json_decode()), I tend to think of them as logically equivalent to associative arrays. To that end, I'd consider stdClass to be as "designed for iteration" as any associative array -- if we can even say a stdClass was designed at all :) As-is, the RFC requires users to either cast stdClass instances to an array or decorate them with an Iterator (e.g. ArrayObject). I find this a bit irksome, but it's certainly easy to work around. That said, I realize that voting is in progress and it's not my intention to interrupt anything. I just wanted to relay a viewpoint that might not have come up. -- jeremy mikola
