Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104475
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 10:32:31 -0600
Message-ID: <5767621.reugzEP4TJ@vulcan>
In-Reply-To: <CALKiJKoL6g4qBDfdYSiWSo9Mb4jZO=VziMaCrNmWP090NGmh_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFPFaML36y=yf2y_j3VCJk7_uASc+cfLC1jHC_ipC0a_k+=2Fw@mail.gmail.com> <3247148.HBVCQ37Dhl@vulcan> <CALKiJKoL6g4qBDfdYSiWSo9Mb4jZO=VziMaCrNmWP090NGmh_g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart7834614.8o7ypyyPOR"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Allows arrays to be type-hinted with interfaces mimicking Array behaviour
From: larry@garfieldtech.com (Larry Garfield)

--nextPart7834614.8o7ypyyPOR
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 3:38:16 AM CST Rowan Collins wrote:
> 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,

<expletive deleted>  No, I don't.  That's the second time KMail has eaten half 
a message on me.  I am now officially in the market for a new local mail 
client, because that's JUST NOT OK, KMAIL!

The gist is that if you're dealing with unknown foreign data (JSON, GET/POST, 
etc.) you should be wrapping the raw structure into an object that provides a 
better interface, default value handling, error handling, etc.  If you know 
what the keys are in advance, make it an explicit class, period.

So while I would be OK with an ArrayAccessible type hint for completeness, I 
would view using it as a code smell.

Insert debate about union types here, as it's bound to come up at this point.

Excuse me while I go find a new Linux mail client that isn't a buggy data-
losing <censored>.

--Larry Garfield
--nextPart7834614.8o7ypyyPOR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEE/ph/GXfY8v0YwFBp4MMKwDFxYXcFAlxsL58ACgkQ4MMKwDFx
YXeIPgf8D009pfs8PW4rhOyYazqfWtw3n/AOXacFCHFsTGXk5WvwvS4sAeTkhrPX
HBWPG93Ze5//e7HkyQp018dzmPVFqC5nfAA45tYz0uhq5OpB1HSl6GRwhjSABtlv
Q8LyR2RZmyA2tpBiHp00z40UUksE//Xf0q2gdz9RSFEvxLdrB8Y7zXB6FNw9Krym
zfOXZ758wABLqE5Spt1USqfmbyoJJ+WwJgx9Ld8A6f3psvZkOUlWx+HAURMpWAtb
vqx1ndr5q6Orki6z/Q9I/oehZZJBbHVsbP5W7M6HUhrRDB8QO2CnszqmLx89b2wP
Z+fUBKLRXcK/OqDW5w8e0umFsSvIpg==
=y4Au
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart7834614.8o7ypyyPOR--