Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109799
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKuGYLSHXG=QSjPT5TCgf2KV-D+cMt=s4++sw38wy3Hwt1BuqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4c1cd016-1e41-4ebc-afc4-d8d3cd1c319b@www.fastmail.com> <CAKuGYLR_GxMdyNniRW93U=tHu3xr+g0VkzzoRRoH-jQx=sVegQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <31441489-11c6-4d99-9c53-6ac0e877f268@www.fastmail.com> <CAKuGYLT8Ros+bQtuuLmNWYsGLjzNJVUeChEyHH0k3bR4fRPb9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <73b33704-ded2-4cbc-93bd-17e8874177f2@www.fastmail.com> <CAKuGYLTBdGcQVJGpoN=jhv47PUA6DKwcqD8AUUvoht+j_6RKuQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKuGYLTBdGcQVJGpoN=jhv47PUA6DKwcqD8AUUvoht+j_6RKuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: Levi Morrison <levi.morrison@datadoghq.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 23:33:14 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAKU0ukagJjjm2DjiOLfnB1dzVnew90BXeGscVLHdug64a3dMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Brown <matthewmatthew@gmail.com>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Any interest in a list type?
From: internals@lists.php.net ("Levi Morrison via internals")

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:03 PM Matthew Brown <matthewmatthew@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>
> > This is the *design* process for a language, and it's important...
> Stepping back to reconsider how collections work generally, and how we ca=
n
> improve them in a graceful way that leads to a clean end-state, would be
> very valuable.
>
> Though you have much more experience with internals than I do, I think th=
at
> building a consensus around a bold new vision for PHP collections would b=
e
> a near-Sisyphean task.
>
> Adding a list/vector type would be a much smaller, more easily definable
> task =E2=80=93 it was one of the first new types that Hack added, and by =
all
> accounts they're pretty happy with that decision.

IIRC, they switched from object semantics to value semantics (like PHP
arrays). Can someone more knowledgeable confirm?

>
> > Should we also be adding a dedicated dictionary type as well?
>
> Maybe? I think there'd be less to gain from a performance standpoint
> though, so I didn't want to lump that in with any list proposal and risk
> derailment.