Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72858
Return-Path: <cryptocompress@googlemail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 45664 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2014 09:57:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 28 Feb 2014 09:57:29 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cryptocompress@googlemail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cryptocompress@googlemail.com; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 209.85.215.179 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cryptocompress@googlemail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.179 mail-ea0-f179.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.215.179] ([209.85.215.179:34669] helo=mail-ea0-f179.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 77/72-28957-88D50135 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:57:29 -0500
Received: by mail-ea0-f179.google.com with SMTP id q10so2500238ead.24
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 01:57:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=ZiM0giBn5CFZs5xWkMIcAM4CJQgEA5r+oMinntF1cSg=;
        b=gg+JCs+Zm6N+Cdg4v5F9OXxwCAa5ug+XrueaHr5nwC1Y33SsFlGDj2YJt6h/wU77T1
         npnh0zCCM44AGShSZfEhDMap95mvzJPM0Jxr/HAMpk3YQtI95KDc0QnFKr0CmI+TCDmt
         nJVRDGDNQ7xk6/ORicSL0OWzXihFPbiz44VnNkHMLLoZ4gP4bCAA5ZmZxUdeZykUGpKe
         uE4HZR//zX0w12K+PDifQmGODu0kkKeTrzQ+M9rOLfNkTHDsaNNNoyDXzhjGHYLaHPHq
         36rbLyruyvqiK5eeTzR7Zea/Ik8fM0i0avIhsyrCfj8QBDO01GNagFdAs4kj7G9hOQ7s
         SfQA==
X-Received: by 10.15.111.130 with SMTP id cj2mr2599522eeb.102.1393581445758;
        Fri, 28 Feb 2014 01:57:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.115] (mnch-5d877c24.pool.mediaWays.net. [93.135.124.36])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j41sm8441980eeg.10.2014.02.28.01.57.21
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Fri, 28 Feb 2014 01:57:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <53105D7F.3030701@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:57:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Wright <daverandom@php.net>
CC: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAPhkiZzW8g6PORyjrHFRTcUTLre+wM-sckZrNqRknkdgZrpr-w@mail.gmail.com>	<52D865C7.4070009@sugarcrm.com>	<CAPhkiZy9nhRAQFPgSfeemO4UT1B6iuozhirwt0wZ=mUaOUOJwQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAPhkiZwzPz48c4gwAWt9ZPATpmLxk8kRL3A+Pd8KrveQabQQ6A@mail.gmail.com>	<CAPhkiZyXOsx5CrV1QH2DrC9Who==i_CwNTeGQO4-DM0_mExuHw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAPhkiZw1zgNBavNj-H1y_-8Fwnr34jUmu8cNk5jX7krAx29oag@mail.gmail.com>	<CABDNdAE_-Lv29Q2r1BJgkLD0NutkwxN2AXQgsCZm7TPJKjEmxA@mail.gmail.com>	<CABDNdAEKXkFL2kqAPXPxjgZLD9toeva9D8emG+Zw2jKn-4Aijg@mail.gmail.com>	<CADyq6sLJovLcM3LZR_UDQbjN1Ba9wRuzWBMiXHbLJMQc6Kmptw@mail.gmail.com>	<531044A8.8050002@googlemail.com> <CAGAGxbYo4FGBfvAVR89fBE0Cqn_MDkotaNOa1JfY-LJP8oEMjg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGAGxbYo4FGBfvAVR89fBE0Cqn_MDkotaNOa1JfY-LJP8oEMjg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Introducing "Array Of" RFC
From: cryptocompress@googlemail.com (Crypto Compress)


> Are you suggesting the following?
>
> function foo(Bar[] $bars) // required to pass an array of Bar objects
> function foo(Bar[] $bars = null) // required to pass an array of Bar
> or null members

No. This is ambiguous, as you imply. I prefer c# syntax.


> ...because if so, how do I specify an optional array of Bar objects?
> And how do I specify an optional array of Bar or null?
>
> The whole concept of allowing null members seems to completely defeat
> the purpose of the ArrayOf hint for me. I can understand wanting to
> make the parameter optional, but I cannot see a use case for null
> members from the point of view of the caller. I never null out members
> of an array, I only omit them from the declaration or remove the
> member from the array via e.g. unset() or stack operations (pop(),
> shift() etc). YMMV of course, but for me allowing null members just
> makes the callee's life more difficult and does not gain anything.

Have to agree, there is not too much value in this. ;)
Usecase: No need to write a mock for third and seventh array element. In 
fact i can't think of other usecases. It's only a simple logical 
extension of "function (A $a = null)".