On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> In general, I think casting an object to an array sucks.
> I would be all for an E_STRICT message that this is deprecated as we have
> "real" objects now and IMO, and that...
> ...the behavior might change/go away sometime in the future.
Are you saying
Yeah, because it used to work.
Andi
At 01:19 PM 1/21/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
Why not simply make the cast not work?
Can you think of any BC problem with that? :)
--Jani
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>In general, I think casting an object to an array sucks.
>I wo
Why not simply make the cast not work?
Can you think of any BC problem with that? :)
--Jani
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>In general, I think casting an object to an array sucks.
>I would be all for an E_STRICT message that this is deprecated as we have
>"real"
In general, I think casting an object to an array sucks.
I would be all for an E_STRICT message that this is deprecated as we have
"real" objects now and IMO, and that the behavior might change/go away
sometime in the future.
Andi
At 05:07 PM 1/17/2004 +0100, Andrey Hristov wrote:
Pierre-Alain
Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:44:29 +0100
Andrey Hristov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO, when casting to array with (array) only the public-ly visible
members should returned.
Dunno, E_STRICT (as you can access them without notice/warning without
this flag)?
In the same manner:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:44:29 +0100
Andrey Hristov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO, when casting to array with (array) only the public-ly visible
> members should returned.
Dunno, E_STRICT (as you can access them without notice/warning without
this flag)?
In the same manner:
dump();
?>
a var_d
