Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101728
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain garfieldtech.com from 66.111.4.27 cause and error)
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:16:54 -0600
Message-ID: <4026445.Wp3pesFrPl@vulcan>
In-Reply-To: <CAEUnE0fSHGDDqoQHKR_sBMRc+DH4fYXiBdsozKqoGw1YgBNZfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEUnE0cRR6jtU2GoeiP4SDLJejF4+6zY=fT1FiTKPe6aKwoFqg@mail.gmail.com> <C86CA5E7-880B-409F-B730-C509590BF397@gmail.com> <CAEUnE0fSHGDDqoQHKR_sBMRc+DH4fYXiBdsozKqoGw1YgBNZfw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart6169622.iXkENGB1lu"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Collection Inspection
From: larry@garfieldtech.com (Larry Garfield)

--nextPart6169622.iXkENGB1lu
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Monday, January 29, 2018 3:35:18 PM CST Michael Morris wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
> 
> wrote:
> > Nor are generators the only non-rewindable iterables you need to worry
> > about, so really the only options you have are to only inspect arrays, or
> > to add a big fat warning that the function may consume your iterable (or
> > enter an infinite loop).
> 
> Sorry about the double reply.  What about using count() as a guard?  While
> there might be some countable consumables, my understand of generators is
> they are often used where no prior count is available. Arrays and
> ArrayObjects are countable.

It's totally legit to have an object that is a consumable iterable that is 
also countable.  (So many -ables in that sentence...)

Really, these functions would be useful only on arrays, period.  To allow them 
on anything else is just dangerous, and on other iterables there are better, 
more robust approaches (as discussed elsewhere in this thread).

As you've demonstrated they're also quite compact and effective to do in user-
space, so unless there's a massive performance difference of moving them to C 
they don't seem all that appropriate to add to the language directly.

--Larry Garfield

--nextPart6169622.iXkENGB1lu
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAABCAAGBQJab7l2AAoJEODDCsAxcWF31noIAORhfDogUL1hDIz1pnhQY4lk
3AerMoOUeiyEviZf/U75a+bdMwutl6RCUibI0TqILThEa3WzAOc/fZ4WbGajYVoX
r+/dPPX/3jibElkAUriQBv51AHj5y2LimpyPlYtmSdzxw0YqSkpxMmfVYREH1jMf
D7aJx0bYzK8vfLmITW4dxOawnzk7HIiNxZzrhBwXE62Vlp6kZZa/fa1ktBjpBTk0
YFOvNw/wGqv4KBZFQi4hGJXgJHLJ4nBbrXWnPzU1vZsrcXJ65Pj+8RUusAAL90F1
62BC3N7xChyQOIlQOyRrAJ3VE3yqjjPr1GFzTRKDfvgr2V68J8OGx/448uQnLNA=
=sZyN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart6169622.iXkENGB1lu--