On Monday, February 18, 2019 3:15:59 PM CST Girgias wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:26, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 17, 2019 9:24:05 AM CST Girgias wrote:
> > > Greetings internals,
> > >
> > > I would like to have your opinion on being able to type hint arrays and
> > > objects which implement
> > > array-like interfaces (notably ArrayAccess, Countable, and Iterator) as
> > > currently if a function /method only needs one specific feature of an
> >
> > array
> >
> > > and is willing to accept array-like objects.
> > > There are some rather repetitive boilerplate and the impossibility of
> >
> > using
> >
> > > type hints.
> > >
> > > An example of such a function, (where $arrayLike could be custom session
> > > object) :
> > >
> > > /** ArrayAccess|array $arrayLike */
> > > public function checkCSRF($session) {
> > >
> > > if (!is_array($session) && !($session instanceof ArrayAccess)) {
> > >
> > > throw new Exception();
> > >
> > > }
> > > // Check token
> > > if (!isset($session['CSRF']) {
> > >
> > > throw new Exception();
> > >
> > > }
> > > // Do some more stuff ...
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > As it can be seen this function/method doesn't need any of the other
> > > properties of an array
> > > such as Countability or Traversability to do its job.
> > > However, in the current state of PHP, it is impossible to accept
> >
> > array-like
> >
> > > objects without
> > > writing the initial if statement.
> >
> > While I would like to see better consistency between arrays and array-ish
> > objects in principle, in this case I think it's the wrong approach.
> > You're
> > using an associative array as a cheap anonymous struct. Don't do that.
> > It's
> > far less self-documenting, far less type safe, far more error prone, and
> > far
> > less performant. Just switching $session from an array-ish value to a
> > class
> > with public properties would make it use half as much memory. cf:
> >
> > https://steemit.com/php/@crell/php-use-associative-arrays-basically-never
> > https://steemit.com/php/@crell/php-never-type-hint-on-arrays
> >
> > Making it easier to use
> > anonymous-array-or-object-acting-like-anonymous-array
> > would be a step backwards in every possible way.
> >
> > --Larry Garfield
>
> Hello Larry,
>
> First of all thanks for the feedback and link to your benchmark of Objects
> vs Arrays.
>
> However, I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Maybe I'm not
> understanding or
> maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough.
> But I don't see how what you say contradicts me.
>
> I do totally agree with you that Classes should be used most of the time,
> however my take from your article is that you only encourage the use of
> ``iterable``
> instead of ``array`` which I 100% agree on.
> However it is impossible to type-hint an argument with Countable or
> ArrayAccess
> such that it accepts object but, key point, *ALSO* accepts arrays, even if
> from what I
> understand you want to limit its usage to the bare minimum.
>
> Also you can disagree with the fact of using an array as a "cheap"
> anonymous structure
> but, by default, PHP uses arrays like that for get, post, sessions, files,
> cookies, server,
> request, and environment variables. So if I want to use an object, which
> implements
> ArrayAccess, to represent this data because it is more structured and
> memory efficient
> but can't pass it to a function (/method/constructor) from a library
> because it typehints
> against array (and yes I saw that you discourage the use of array
> type-hinting but this
> only works for iterables not if someone accesses it like an array or wants
> to count it)
> that for example validates my POST values.
> However I don't expect a library to just accept an object because more
> likely than not
> it expect the raw data to be an array even if it doesn't care about the
> other "features"
> of an array.
> And until PHP uses objects for all superglobals I don't see an easy way
> around it.
>
> Now in the case I wasn't clear what I would like is that IF there is a
> type-hint for ArrayAccess
> and Countable, arrays are automatically accepted and the if statement can
> be removed.
>
> Now if you are saying object shouldn't implement ArrayAccess and methods
> should just type hint
> against that object that's a whole other issue, but I don't think this is
> what you are trying to get at.
>
> So I would love if you could clarify what you meant as you seem to have
> some insight/opinion which
> seems valuable and maybe also give your opinion on how you would like to
> see better consistency
> with arrays and array-like objects.
>
>
> Best regards
>
> George P. BanyardYes, a lot of existing code uses arrays as anonymous structs. Such code is, IMO, "doing it wrong". That includes PHP default behavior in many cases. The super-globals are one of the exceptions, as since by definition you don't know what the keys could be in advance you need some sort of generic accessor. superglobals anyway on the grounds that globals are evil (fact check: true). There is often an object wrapping around the session that has get() and set() object be kind-of-array-ish-for-some-part-of-array-ish-ness is a long-standing problem, no question. iterable was a good addition. I think there was discussion of a countable type hint at one point, but I don't think it made it That leaves ArrayAccessible (aka, you can put [] after it and something useful happens), which is what you describe. I would not be against adding such a instead of an object is Just Plain Wrong(tm). Even a bare public property class is superior in every possible way, before we even get into questions of useful accessor methods. be. (Eg, parsing JSON, GET or POST parameters, etc.) 2) You're being sloppy and not thinking through your API. struct into an object that has appropriate accessors that can then handle error cases, missing values, etc. Not doing so results in things like, say, particular anonymous-struct was missing a certain key, which I didn't know was possible, but it broke the whole application. (Seriously, that was my entire struct, even if you're using __get() or ArrayAccerss to do it. (SimpleXML is an example of that approach, for better or worse.) where you have to care, but those are edge-casey. ArrayAccessible is a code smell, and the solution is to properly structure your data and type hint on a defined class instead. Including an ArrayAccessible pseudo-type would be just a matter of completeness, not something I would advise anyone actually use.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
