Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:45145
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.224 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=VSAfShDAU6hhSur4ZdNcmDGBwi4+B3euF3vwUrs1F9V72jXm1G4axyzpz+OkwNVOl9
         voRp3z6YbbRz3GIer/FMfk/kK5QZnqHFlORhq1zYFkaiYk9//WMtctmI3Zq8aN+jHR4t
         JDA3k8+F2nHoCuUl97JW8ynwKfug3y7NfNAEo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cd5680a20907300710h2d6df431hfd1e03c83fc95a4e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <bcb7aa500907292008m67021b98s54938233a5783ddc@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1248962475.4159.14.camel@goldfinger.johannes.nop>
	 <cd5680a20907300710h2d6df431hfd1e03c83fc95a4e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:52:11 -0500
Message-ID: <ffa0ace80907300752t2dca6388h8b8b06e49683e2eb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Zakhlestin <indeyets@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?= <johannes@schlueters.de>, 
	Guilherme Blanco <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64c1be2da5f67046fed72ae
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Supporting ArrayObject in array_* functions
From: nlgordon@gmail.com (Nate Gordon)

--0016e64c1be2da5f67046fed72ae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2009/7/30 Alexey Zakhlestin <indeyets@gmail.com>

> 2009/7/30 Johannes Schl=C3=BCter <johannes@schlueters.de>:
> > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 00:08 -0300, Guilherme Blanco wrote:
> >> What do you think about the possibility to support ArrayObject
> >> instances in array_* functions?
> >> If you all agreed on this, I can definately help to complete the
> >> patch, but I need some initial guidance to finish at least the first
> >> function.
> >
> > In general I'm for bringing Iterators/ArrayObject/.. on a line with
> > arrays but please don't simply patch some functions but let's try to
> > find a as consistent as possible global solution.
> >
> > Questions included there are of these kinds (just examples)
> > - is that specific to ArrayObject or do we "need" interfaces like
> >  "Sortable" or "Shuffable"
> > - What should stuff like aray_merge(ArrayObject, array) do
> > - Should we do this globally? (should ldap_set_option()
> >  allow an ArrayObject as 3rd param?)
> >
> > Especially the latter shows that a proper solution might be not to patc=
h
> > individual functions but to introduce some form of abstraction from
> > HashTables for "array operations" and then use that interface.
> >
> > Simply extending a few functions will end in a mess but looking around
> > people seem to love these structures so improving them is good.
>
> agreed.
> the proper solution would be to define several interfaces, make
> functions accept objects of these interfaces and then add some
> "hacks", which would pretend, that array() implements these.
>

I would vote to extend this concept to user-land functions as well if at al=
l
possible.  It would make my life easier to not care about the implementatio=
n
of a set of data so long as it conformed to an interface.

--=20
-Nathan Gordon

If the database server goes down and there is no code to hear it, does it
really go down?
<esc>:wq<CR>

--0016e64c1be2da5f67046fed72ae--