Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71156
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.68 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <002d01cf1234$01e6dc60$05b49520$@tutteli.ch>
References: <CABDNdAGCH5i9-=4Ys1CXeNaGWGmX=mkTiq0b7BbUKtBPdQ9XVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<001301cf1227$6d082ab0$47188010$@tutteli.ch>
	<CABDNdAHZTcE09kS-r_XTGOE9Q5EjTsEQyvzd29q0_nUqnPRrfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF9U7z-qR-JnXmbuS-ok2NnB_QzecM1Z4MGhek77rktdSYmcmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADyq6s+KqD4Sp00NcJKDAAxX+xWT4x1C3_D1zMVqZ1PRKf__9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<002d01cf1234$01e6dc60$05b49520$@tutteli.ch>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:24:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CABDNdAEAQyyLQXFw3tw8S9Rb=+9Z-k1K_geX6HG7x1reCoJ5Rw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Stoll <php@tutteli.ch>
Cc: Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>, Kristopher <kristopherwilson@gmail.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Introducing "Array Of" RFC
From: pjsturgeon@gmail.com (Philip Sturgeon)

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Robert Stoll <php@tutteli.ch> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marco Pivetta [mailto:ocramius@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:25 PM
>> To: Kristopher
>> Cc: Philip Sturgeon; Robert Stoll; internals@lists.php.net
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Introducing "Array Of" RFC
>>
>> On 15 January 2014 21:19, Kristopher <kristopherwilson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I think this implementation (MyClass[]) should be consistent this when
>> > passing null.
>> >
>>
>> Even without the argument of consistency, the new syntax would be pretty
>> much useless if `NULL` was allowed, since every method would have start
>> with a call to `array_filter`.
>>
>> Marco Pivetta
>>
>
> You could also think in a different way. NULL is basically a valid entry =
in an array. If you apply the restriction as implemented in the pull reques=
t then one cannot use the new syntax for arrays which allow NULL, that seem=
s odd to me as well. Especially since class/interface-types are reference t=
ypes and I regard NULL as something equal to a null-pointer.
> Furthermore, if one does not want to support NULL in an array currently, =
then one probably already uses an own collection implementation which alrea=
dy triggers and error, throws an exception respectively, when one tries to =
add NULL to the collection.
>
> It seems the pull request does not yet support multidimensional arrays (e=
.g. Foo[][]) but if we would stick to the restriction now then the conseque=
nce should be that this restriction also applies to multi-dimensional array=
s. In my opinion, we would spoil valid use cases this way for RFC and for f=
uture ones (in the case multi-dimensional arrays will be introduced, other =
concepts could be affected as well).
>
> Thus I would suggest to remove this check and provide a further SPL data =
structure implementation instead which does not allow null as entry if this=
 feature is really needed. Seems more appropriate to me than making a restr=
iction in the language itself.
>
>
>

I would assume that the majority of people will be using this syntax
to ensure the types of objects.

In English:

"I would like everything in this array to be Foo."

That is much more programatically useful in my opinion than:

"I would like everything in this array to be Foo or maybe null."

If we go with the latter then I still have no idea what is in this
variable, and have to do a whole bunch of checking or
array_filter()ing, otherwise I am doing this:

$possibleNullValue->getInfo(); // BOOM!

Even if there are use-cases for allowing them I would suggest that
there are probably more use-cases for denying them.