Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71352 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 36163 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2014 21:03:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Jan 2014 21:03:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@golemon.com; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@golemon.com; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.192.173 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@golemon.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.192.173 mail-pd0-f173.google.com Received: from [209.85.192.173] ([209.85.192.173:52137] helo=mail-pd0-f173.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 4A/5A-02192-23F8DD25 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:03:47 -0500 Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id y10so3733452pdj.18 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:03:43 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tUfJefXDq/GvjVMu10q/hzaq3V2I2v7DGFLl+NO8fOM=; b=kyzS8VFOA+XGiS4MLipd7udwpFSrWnF8shMDRZMOslkydcXhuIN0ZyKh72+aspBPvJ 2TF7E6ooBr7aCbgP1LNImlepHbH9xKhaMg39WPyrU5nUTSQOF7Vf3Vou6Ssm71wzG7+u tCok88UDVN5aXbVnKmdjpyVuSkFTCwyVABDXDxtkkwk2jkGxDk0NXJjqcMv831E+RB0/ KMTuXzIJO21C/wPkPNOEqjkdWovPOxooc6iOWt7QJC5vZ0c7VBcJdpxgfCPzJUVBZM+l lEVGuFR/PO2WhylqVzuin4x9olvmMwSJaQSExCITSYNhW6nn8k1dQN+X418nThoCuJpY jGwA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkDtpHstts0pzJYS67r/tox3CQpp5re40wgWzVEQt5uaozt7MIKGyFOkmo63YbzZabGSyzr MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.209.193 with SMTP id mo1mr21129841pbc.38.1390251823577; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:03:43 -0800 (PST) Sender: php@golemon.com Received: by 10.70.77.164 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:03:43 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [2001:470:1f09:2fa:22c9:d0ff:fe87:295b] In-Reply-To: <52DD8CBC.4040401@googlemail.com> References: <0B.B1.24763.139B7D25@pb1.pair.com> <002001cf12da$2bfbda90$83f38fb0$@tutteli.ch> <52DCA3E7.80602@lerdorf.com> <52DCED71.3020207@pthreads.org> <006301cf15f5$22f8df60$68ea9e20$@tutteli.ch> <52DD77E8.8000800@ajf.me> <52DD8CBC.4040401@googlemail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:03:43 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: uYxxVso1z3bkcAconRMyYSbJ3V4 Message-ID: To: Crypto Compress Cc: PHP Developers Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Introducing "Array Of" RFC From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon) >> Dictionary[] foo <-- Is that *really* what you want an >> array of int->string dictionaries to look like? Really? > > Yes, i like this clean separation between base/scalar types and generics. We > can have this RFC *and* generics. Can't see any problems here. This is not > critique of your work or generics! > Eh... Makes one of us then. I think that syntax looks horrendous. Agree to disagree. > Discussed performance penalty got in long time before this RFC: > http://3v4l.org/os5Gg > That's not a discussion, that's a contrived benchmark, and a deeply flawed one since it amplifies general function call overhead and doesn't look at type-checking arbitrarily large arrays, let alone nested arrays. That benchmark was designed to lose any perf hit in the noise. > The only thing to solve is the nullable-issue... > Apart from performance and syntax. -Sara