Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:22998
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Reply-To: bu@orbitel.bg
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:27:56 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
References: <444FF5CD.2010805@dealnews.com> <444FF716.6070201@lerdorf.com> <44512305.90207@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <44512305.90207@pobox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="nextPart1274398.chqT0D6dcP";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <200604272328.00671.bu@orbitel.bg>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Passing functions to function by reference
From: bu@orbitel.bg (Petar Nedyalkov)

--nextPart1274398.chqT0D6dcP
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thursday 27 April 2006 23:01, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> >> PHP 5.0 broke this.  There was a fatal error on the array_shift that
> >> only variables could be passed by reference.  There was a good
> >> argument for it.  So, we started migrating our code.
> >>
> >> Well, seems this works in 5.1.  So, my question is, was it an
> >> intentional "fix" or will this break again and we need to continue to
> >> watch for this?
> >
> > In 5.1 this now throws an E_STRICT instead of a warning.  It is still a
> > bad idea to pass a tempvar by reference, so yes, you should strive to
> > write E_STRICT clean code.
>
> Stupid question: why is it a bad idea?

Check the mailing-list archive - there was a long discussion on this topic=
=20
some 4, 5 months ago.

>
> I would expect these to be equivalent for all intents and purposes:
>
>   func_taking_reference(some_func());
>
> and
>
>   $temp =3D some_func();
>   func_taking_reference($temp);
>
> where $temp is never used again and quickly passes out of scope.
>
> Is there some reason that they are not considered equivalent, or that they
> cannot or should not be made equivalent?

Yes, of course :-) Nothing happens by chance here.

>
> I seem to remember a reason being quoted for all these reference-related
> changes something like it can cause memory corruption. But that would
> appear to be an implementation bug, not an essential difficulty, as if it
> were really *memory corruption* I can't imagine it being turned back on in
> 5.1. :)
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)

=2D-=20

Cyberly yours,
Petar Nedyalkov
Devoted Orbitel Fan :-)

PGP ID: 7AE45436
PGP Public Key: http://bu.orbitel.bg/pgp/bu.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 7923 8D52 B145 02E8 6F63 8BDA 2D3F 7C0B 7AE4 5436

--nextPart1274398.chqT0D6dcP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBEUSlQLT98C3rkVDYRAnv6AJ94GyDCA74tx8MH+RyWMJy05FtJEgCfTkc5
hTeB0dNaKDWJm7TaUdFEzIM=
=3n/l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1274398.chqT0D6dcP--