Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94340
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <35132CB5-6E11-477F-8AC6-4374A7434D43@trowski.com>
References: <8284FE1F-70EE-4DB6-A945-0C57A4C99DCC@trowski.com>
 <16ef864f-8378-1af3-ddfb-21dc583a4b4a@gmx.de> <CAFMT4NrTDLhU912CQH55Y8z+M0s_qyP_FOxLKALwUcV0xB52Fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d502f27c-869a-e46b-186d-9653f154bdf3@fleshgrinder.com> <35132CB5-6E11-477F-8AC6-4374A7434D43@trowski.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:01:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CANzZr6mrWd2KTYm0CAWv+hSivo3G6bv97xtjYf1yoX9HLfxgMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@trowski.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11411c0eaf1c1e05368457ba
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Iterable
From: jmikola@gmail.com (Jeremy Mikola)

--001a11411c0eaf1c1e05368457ba
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@trowski.com>
wrote:

>
> I plan on bringing the iterable RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/iterable)
> to a vote in about a week, does anyone have any further feedback on this
> proposal?
>

Was there any discussion about a special allowance being made for stdClass?

I've noted the is_iterable(new stdClass) example and ensuing "Object
Iteration" section:

PHP allows any object to be used with foreach. However, iterable does not
> accept any object, only those implementing Traversable. Values accepted
> by iterable should be designed for iteration, not any set of values (such
> as the public properties of an object or a string).
>

I'm on the fence if that second sentence applies to stdClass. Based on how
users typically end up with stdClass instances (e.g. casting arrays to an
object, json_decode()), I tend to think of them as logically equivalent to
associative arrays. To that end, I'd consider stdClass to be as "designed
for iteration" as any associative array -- if we can even say a stdClass
was designed at all :)

As-is, the RFC requires users to either cast stdClass instances to an array
or decorate them with an Iterator (e.g. ArrayObject). I find this a bit
irksome, but it's certainly easy to work around.

That said, I realize that voting is in progress and it's not my intention
to interrupt anything. I just wanted to relay a viewpoint that might not
have come up.

-- 
jeremy mikola

--001a11411c0eaf1c1e05368457ba--