Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49219 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25979 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2010 17:41:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Aug 2010 17:41:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.153 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.153 smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.153] ([67.192.241.153:41116] helo=smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 7E/97-21239-9494C5C4 for ; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:41:30 -0400 Received: from relay25.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay25.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 05B063600DB; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 13:41:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by relay25.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id CCCBA360175; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 13:41:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C5C4946.5060103@sugarcrm.com> Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 10:41:26 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gustavo Lopes CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <1272386738.870.32.camel@guybrush> <4C599C17.5050505@smashlabs.com> <4C5B3B1F.9090905@sugarcrm.com> <4C5C1AA6.2010902@smashlabs.com> <4C5C2139.8040800@smashlabs.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ArrayAccess::offsetGet not returning a ref From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > In my opinion, it would make more sense, as was already suggested before, > to require the return to be passed by reference only if the prototype > specifies it should be passed by reference. This could be argued to be a > form of return contravariance. Yes, this makes sense. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227