Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94347
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANzZr6mrWd2KTYm0CAWv+hSivo3G6bv97xtjYf1yoX9HLfxgMg@mail.gmail.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>
 <CANzZr6mrWd2KTYm0CAWv+hSivo3G6bv97xtjYf1yoX9HLfxgMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:50:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c--DY2L82F0SA_qeyDUzp-VP_3gP41FBDfMPpE4RtdnWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Mikola <jmikola@gmail.com>
Cc: Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@trowski.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d3852d091f5053686b252
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Iterable
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--001a113d3852d091f5053686b252
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Jeremy Mikola <jmikola@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>

Instead of adding a special case to iterable, we could also make stdClass
implement Traversable. (If we agree that stdClass is explicitly intended
for iteration -- not so sure on that.)

Nikita

--001a113d3852d091f5053686b252--