Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:125959
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:24:38 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <3dcc5393-6ce7-465c-abe6-ecb687b0f369@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C62F7404-7472-4A01-BD43-C3C5A667DFC5@cschneid.com>
References: 
 <CALWFqqCWV6bzJ0wQud5uH9U82JtNGOqjTOad-w7PVoZ4yn3YVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6s+rctWKjQG2g-sy_tWibdyesLKkuxCwNCyor1_KhBnpaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <C62F7404-7472-4A01-BD43-C3C5A667DFC5@cschneid.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [Discussion] Make objects unpackable by default
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024, at 7:37 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> Am 14.11.2024 um 10:59 schrieb Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>:
>> On Thu, 14 Nov 2024, 11:29 MrMeshok, <ilyaorlov124@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello, Internals!
>>>=20
>>> As you know if you try to unpack a regular object (`...$object`) you=
 will get an error: Only arrays and Traversables can be unpacked.
>>> I don't really see a reason for this restriction, because foreach on=
 objects works perfectly fine, so I made a feature request on GitHub to =
change this behavior (https://github.com/php/php-src/issues/16038) and w=
as advised to see opinions on this here.
>>> So, what do you think? And does this change require RFC?
>>=20
>> TBH, foreach on objects is already quite an abomination in itself =F0=
=9F=98=AC
>
> It is a bit less weird if you use value objects or json data in object=
 form.
> I would be careful to judge how other people use the language, just sa=
ying ;-)
>
> - Chris

Judging how one should use a language is a core component of language de=
sign.

I'm with Marco on this one, and I'd be more than happy to get rid of for=
each($object), too.  It's way, way more complicated a topic than you thi=
nk.

How does visibility play into it?
Should hooks be invoked or no?
Do references play into anything?

Those are some of the questions we had to deal with for hooks and foreac=
h().  It's non-trivial.  You'd need to address all the same edgy issues =
here, too.

And that's assuming it's even a good idea, which I don't think it is.  I=
f you are using a value object to define unordered arguments, just pass =
the value object itself.  If the receiving function can't handle that, t=
hen it is simple enough that you don't need a value object.  If that's n=
ot the case, then your code design is bad and the language should not tr=
y to paper over that for you.  Either simplify the function or adapt it =
to use a value object directly.  (With union types you can even do so in=
 a BC fashion much of the time.)

--Larry Garfield