Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80874
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: marcio3w@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CALrkBjZ=FzyiZRtDz5JNQ6P=A5m1cpYAdUF7p5+34g6ys4sbdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUQDCgq5hPEk=dMg8enSLrxAdmLqHRJoKXB0rkhNff+KbaUag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALrkBjY-aFOOLPbyrsRqaeqLV9EDZw0gTq7RE5fAM4Q=WrU0fQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <DF15C6B5-6241-4366-BFC0-24F894463262@ajf.me> <CAEZPtU51Svx1MbOCnhQ=s53xiTdquKSEcD-5TvA8_Rg5A2GjoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALrkBjZ=FzyiZRtDz5JNQ6P=A5m1cpYAdUF7p5+34g6ys4sbdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:47:51 -0300
Message-ID: <CAOsHV+tF3KGcbzeVn6piULvhDfj4SrMG=upoheULJp9f5CWGTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Willbanks <pencap@gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Niklas Keller <me@kelunik.com>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] in Operator
From: marcio.web2@gmail.com (Marcio Almada)

Hi,

Mike, the use of "in" as `for ($var in $object) {};` could be the
subject for another distinct RFC since it's doing something different
from the original proposal:

var_dump("PHP" in ["PHP", "C", "Java"]); // true

2015-01-20 10:41 GMT-03:00 Mike Willbanks <pencap@gmail.com>:
> Hello Pierre, Andrea and Niklas,
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>> >> On 20 Jan 2015, at 03:30, Mike Willbanks <pencap@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am very familiar with the in operator.  However,  the implementatio=
n
>> >> would be incomplete without handling loops via the in operator.  Many
>> >> people when seeing an in operator also think of JavaScript.  In that
>> case
>> >> the in operator iterates over properties.  As such in PHP we should b=
e
>> able
>> >> to iterate over associative arrays should the syntax be added.
>> >>
>> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Statem=
ents/for...in
>> >
>> > Why? We already have foreach/as which does exactly that, and unlike JS
>> which added for/of, there=E2=80=99s nothing wrong with PHP=E2=80=99s for=
each so we don=E2=80=99t
>> need support for a new symbol.
>>
>> Indeed, exactly same feature.
>
>
> It certainly is the same feature from the foreach perspective.  I'm not
> against leaving it out, however, it would be much like the in operator th=
us
> providing some additional syntax sugar.  Many people that often program i=
n
> JavaScript are used to having:
> array.forEach(function()),  for (property in object), etc.
>
> From my perspective it would seem like a hole in the implementation for i=
t
> to be missing but that is also due to having such a split of time between
> the two languages.  Take for instance python utilizing the same thing:
>
> for variable in expression:
> ...     code
> ...
>
> as well as ruby:
>
> for variable [, variable ...] in expression [do]
>    code
> end
>
> Ultimately, I would feel that having the in operator would also create th=
e
> expectation that in PHP we would be able to achieve the following:
>
> for ($var in $array) {} and/or for ($var in $object) {};
>
> Certainly foreach is more rich but I believe based on other languages and
> paradigms that this would be something people would request and expect if
> the in operator was to make it into PHP 7.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike