Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:61389 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 60038 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2012 08:13:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Jul 2012 08:13:57 -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 67.192.241.193 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.193 smtp193.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.193] ([67.192.241.193:58198] helo=smtp193.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 03/A3-39169-34076005 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:13:56 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp19.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 999833C8212; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:13:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp19.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 4D7483C8178; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:13:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <50067040.3090307@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:13:52 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: internals References: <50059AF8.5050805@sugarcrm.com> <5005CB58.2020601@sugarcrm.com> <50066724.6050901@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Pseudo-objects (methods on arrays, strings, etc.) From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > I really do not want to have a semantic discussion here. > > This syntax is sexy, allows us to clean our APIs, and is amazingly handy. I'm sorry, but I can't understand how we can seriously consider making object call syntax mean two entirely different things, create pseudo-objects that look like objects in some situations, but not other situation and generally make a huge mess out of whole object model - because "-> is sexy". Is this really a level we want to have in the discussion? And no, it does not "allow us to clean our APIs" - I again point out using -> has nothing to do with cleaning APIs. Repeating "clean APIs" as if it is some magic spell will not make false statement true, and the statement that using -> somehow cleans up APIs is false. Cleaning APIs and pseudo-objects are two completely different things, and nobody yet shown any relationship between the two. > The reasons why it is not yet implemented have been listed here, only > a matter of time :) IMHO the reason it's not implemented is because it makes very little sense, and only reason I've seen so far to do it is "because it's sexy". Come on. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227