Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79765
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.54 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <5490E4A5.9080901@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 18:04:21 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
CC: Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>, 
 "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>,
 Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, 
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <548FEE87.7020602@gmail.com> <549009EE.7040808@fischer.name> <D5013CDA-61F7-467F-B896-F627D8DBA156@ajf.me> <54907683.2070509@gmail.com> <8AB6896C-D5DB-4471-BBD5-60784B2FC1BE@gmail.com> <54907EDE.6020500@gmail.com> <4E4F7392-154C-4282-8D5D-553194D09DCE@gmail.com> <CAFp73XtbFXAUpNE6fKFMLO8uq80hD-5perXfFs8dKY=MG0SqZA@mail.gmail.com> <5490DC22.2080605@gmx.de> <5490DD19.2080502@gmail.com> <DCB534E5-FFAF-45CB-8EDC-6B597F9D41C9@ajf.me>
In-Reply-To: <DCB534E5-FFAF-45CB-8EDC-6B597F9D41C9@ajf.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Objects as Keys
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

>> On 17 Dec 2014, at 01:32, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>>> AIUI, this RFC is meant to introduce some sugar only.  Wouldn't
>>> it be
>> 
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "some sugar only". It introduces the 
>> capability of using objects in array key context, which was not 
>> available until now.
> 
> That’s not true: the RFC doesn’t allow objects to be keys,

And reading what I actually wrote would reveal that I did not write
"allow objects to be keys", I wrote "using objects in array key
context", and this is of course true. Please do read what you calling
"not true" before doing it. I explained it numerous times, I even wrote
a special blog post explaining it, I referenced it here, but it as if
nobody is actually reading anything before repeating the same arguments.

> it just adds implicit conversion. This is just sugar for an explicit
> conversion to int or string.

And this is completely false. While the result of the function must be
int or string, saying any function that returns int or string is "just
sugar for an explicit conversion to int or string" is false. This
function has its separate purpose which does not equal converting to any
specific type, but is suited for its unique context. You _can_ have it
return the same result as (int) or (string) but you don't have to.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com