Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104470
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFPFaML36y=yf2y_j3VCJk7_uASc+cfLC1jHC_ipC0a_k+=2Fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1838251.7kDW7efa0E@vulcan> <CAFPFaMKSZ2Exg5rrO-t3GR39cXMgSRMGXpap7ZTrX8BFkaMYNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3247148.HBVCQ37Dhl@vulcan>
In-Reply-To: <3247148.HBVCQ37Dhl@vulcan>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:38:16 +0000
Message-ID: <CALKiJKoL6g4qBDfdYSiWSo9Mb4jZO=VziMaCrNmWP090NGmh_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000db89d305823c0035"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Allows arrays to be type-hinted with interfaces
 mimicking Array behaviour
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

--000000000000db89d305823c0035
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 02:44, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote:

> Yes, 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.



Hi Larry,

The above post seems to have been mangled somewhere and lost some of its
text. It's mostly readable anyway (and I think I agree with what's there)
but if you have a copy of the original anywhere, you might want to re-post
it.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]

--000000000000db89d305823c0035--