Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71362
Return-Path: <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 52440 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2014 22:00:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 20 Jan 2014 22:00:23 -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 108.166.43.107 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.107 smtp107.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6
Received: from [108.166.43.107] ([108.166.43.107:44282] helo=smtp107.ord1c.emailsrvr.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id A7/CD-02192-57C9DD25 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:00:22 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by smtp6.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9D426981A0;
	Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:00:19 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp6.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 2732D98134;
	Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:00:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <52DD9C72.9070409@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:00:18 -0800
Organization: SugarCRM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
CC: Philip Sturgeon <pjsturgeon@gmail.com>, 
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CABDNdAGCH5i9-=4Ys1CXeNaGWGmX=mkTiq0b7BbUKtBPdQ9XVg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEp07h_KDafvOMzxVmgQq1XMeO_N3CWdFCN0vVgdxXtEn6imKg@mail.gmail.com>	<20140116110127.202079vzjsj76n7b@webmail.tutteli.ch>	<0B.B1.24763.139B7D25@pb1.pair.com>	<002001cf12da$2bfbda90$83f38fb0$@tutteli.ch>	<CAMUwpuRLfwru8XT64=j5LsNyG_DkwU_i0oHPHqfmn2HuLt+28A@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGAGxbZcj91m0DgBi8ZMBWw400nem+Xkt6VbFBxSVLYWYEC0VA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFRKLUNL_4Kyxe3HRs70Xgsiy4pKo0rsEnEyPCT80B7W20U6jQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGAGxba2U0_pK0kXx-+N=34UJiLUd9ev-TNf=R+jMzzVRGzW3w@mail.gmail.com>	<CAL+t6cE5KxpfSny3pNyW1s-0v00ocC7g=ee6AKcxo1bYoBrKeg@mail.gmail.com>	<CABDNdAG60oWEkjRegE4qc6WE_KcJvv=uqtVPRzihm-42PRcgyg@mail.gmail.com>	<52DCA3E7.80602@lerdorf.com>	<52DCED71.3020207@pthreads.org>	<006301cf15f5$22f8df60$68ea9e20$@tutteli.ch>	<CABDNdAEbzu+J-GQ73_2ra-tuX3aTGDPxue4_gCXu3iOnQgGpvg@mail.gmail.com>	<52DD90E5.2030205@sugarcrm.com> <CAESVnVqk7awSUcqQiA5LRHFmkVeO24KG+vXsNMiPe_O_0hfc0w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVqk7awSUcqQiA5LRHFmkVeO24KG+vXsNMiPe_O_0hfc0w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Introducing "Array Of" RFC
From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev)

Hi!

>   private $spanners = [];
>   public function __offsetset($key, $value) { if (!($value instanceof
> Spanner)) throw new Exception("F-off"); $this->spanners[] = $value; }

Right! So I don't see anything wrong with that. I'd be even OK with:

public function __offsetset($key, Spanner $value) {
 $this->spanners[$key] = $value;
}

And that IMO covers 90% of use cases for Spanners[].

But, thinking more about it, if I *had* to choose between the two with
no other options, I'd probably be happier with ArrayOf<Spanner>
(provided that actually means just a generated class ArrayOf$Spanner and
not checking every element of the actual array). Though IMO even this
case if handled by one line of code, but at least here I can see *some*
use case (namely, code generation if you have thousands of ArrayOf
things and you *really* need to typecheck each and every one of them).
Whether we need it or not is a bit of broader discussion - which I am
leaning to "not" but we could argue about it. But at least it feels for
me more "natural" - you just generate a bunch of code (there are a
number of cans on worms in it but I ignore it for now). Checking each
element post-factum just feels wrong way to approach it. It's like
taking you car to a mechanic each time you'd like to drive somewhere
(yes, car analogy, I live in America, what do you expect?)

-- 
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227