Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114627
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOfzkkxbS6CQidg4-uai42PPRPHfWWL9UZTd+zDgspXsFSr5zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVqGdNjbC=5R9J9nXd28U-ANvGbywhizN6ZV3cZ_0X6QXg@mail.gmail.com> <F11B1486-A90C-49CA-802E-C2C308AAB76C@newclarity.net>
In-Reply-To: <F11B1486-A90C-49CA-802E-C2C308AAB76C@newclarity.net>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 16:31:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAESVnVqL1vaW6SVaO5nxww1b1+28J5+sNjHGp7WZXvZMU00W-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net>
Cc: Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>, "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001f6deb05c3425f41"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] A little syntactic sugar on array_* function calls?
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

--0000000000001f6deb05c3425f41
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 2:36 PM Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote:

> On May 26, 2021, at 2:34 PM, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:
>
>
> What I don't like about the specific proposal is that it's just a little
> too magic in its function selection and argument mapping.  There's also the
> fact that it doesn't leave room to improve specifics about the
> implementations of the methods.  I'd much rather seen an `Array` class
> defined with specific methods declared on it.
>
>
> Wouldn't an `Array` class necessarily result in array-incompatible
> pass-by-reference semantics, which is one of the same issues with userland
> using ArrayObject as an array replacement?
>
>
It would if the Array objects got returned.  I'm instead picturing an
instance that magically comes into being solely for the duration of the
method call.  Once the method returns, the object vanishes.

-Sara

--0000000000001f6deb05c3425f41--