Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:87194
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
References: <CAHMUw2GiRT6OFvrRiuCiikHF_tLu316wN9VG_pQ7vTXcXtJ40w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1436967838.8300.16.camel@kuechenschabe>
 <CAMUwpuQ5uCnic9PQTrzdg1=FLd_pthfuL_av49awtY7MYsER4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4NqN2M1iDd+x4LrtaisZdsffN9YGScazk0e-JG1xGNq8PQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <47DA8928-322C-4869-809F-BABDCA20FFB5@gmail.com>
 <CAEPJduk_1CbaxeVXr6LMZLohPizAng5c8aeJGTCx2sErk67iJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <55A778C7.1040100@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 10:26:31 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJduk_1CbaxeVXr6LMZLohPizAng5c8aeJGTCx2sErk67iJA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------060607030409010308080004"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Consolidation of Traversable and array operations
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

--------------060607030409010308080004
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Benjamin Eberlei wrote on 15/07/2015 21:19:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Rowan Collins 
> <rowan.collins@gmail.com <mailto:rowan.collins@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 15 July 2015 20:39:05 GMT+01:00, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net
>     <mailto:levim@php.net>> wrote:
>     >Do note that the union types RFC would also alleviate some of this
>     >pain for user-land functions, since `array | Traversable` would cover
>     >the required access pattern. I think this is a superior approach
>     >myself, but I may be a bit biased as I am authoring that proposal:
>     >https://wiki.php.net/rfc/union_types
>
>     I like the idea of union types in general, but have always felt
>     that a typehint of Traversable should accept arrays as a matter of
>     course. The only thing such a typehint guarantees is that foreach
>     will work (there are no methods defined that can be called
>     directly), and an array meets that condition. The only difference
>     I can see is in the passing / mutability behaviour of objects vs
>     non-objects.
>
>
> But instanceof and anything related to Reflection or get_class or 
> relevant code will fail on array.


Ah, yes, I hadn't thought of reflection type things. I don't think 
instanceof would be a problem, because checking for any class or 
interface other than Traversable would correctly return false; not sure 
if it would make sense for "array() instanceof Traversable" to return 
true or not...

--------------060607030409010308080004--