# ZEND_HASH_APPLY_* confusion

- Thread: https://externals.io/message/22066
- Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/22066
- Started by Marcus Boerger on 2006-03-01T19:26:23+00:00
- Messages: 2
- Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net
- More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt

---

## #22066 — Marcus Boerger — 2006-03-01T19:26:23+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/22066#22066

Hello internals,

  we have the consts:

#define ZEND_HASH_APPLY_KEEP                            0
#define ZEND_HASH_APPLY_REMOVE                          1<<0
#define ZEND_HASH_APPLY_STOP                            1<<1

and the apply functions:
ZEND_API void zend_hash_apply(HashTable *ht, apply_func_t apply_func TSRMLS_DC);
ZEND_API void zend_hash_apply_with_argument(HashTable *ht, apply_func_arg_t apply_func, void * TSRMLS_DC);
ZEND_API void zend_hash_apply_with_arguments(HashTable *ht, apply_func_args_t apply_func, int, ...);

as well as:
ZEND_API void zend_hash_reverse_apply(HashTable *ht, apply_func_t apply_func TSRMLS_DC);

we also have strange uscase:
static int clean_non_persistent_constant(zend_constant *c TSRMLS_DC)
{
        if (c->flags & CONST_PERSISTENT) {
                return EG(full_tables_cleanup) ? 0 : ZEND_HASH_APPLY_STOP;
        } else {
                return EG(full_tables_cleanup) ? 1 : ZEND_HASH_APPLY_REMOVE;
        }
}

which actually would be the same as:
static int clean_non_persistent_constant(zend_constant *c TSRMLS_DC)
{
        if (c->flags & CONST_PERSISTENT) {
                return EG(full_tables_cleanup) ? ZEND_HASH_APPLY_KEEP : ZEND_HASH_APPLY_REMOVE;
        } else {
                return ZEND_HASH_APPLY_REMOVE;
        }
}

because normal apply functions only consider 0 and non 0.
Only the revese apply function takes the STOP constant into account.
Now obviously the case where a mixture of integres and consts is being
used didn't lead to a problem but we should make them correct anyway.

But i think we should also aim to make all apply functions aware of the
STOP const becuase in some cases it would mean a speedup.

Best regards,
 Marcus

---

## #22106 — Andi Gutmans — 2006-03-04T02:35:28+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/22066#22106 · In reply to: #22066

Yeah I think that making this consistent would have benefit.
Would the semantics be relevant to all methods you looked at?

Andi

At 11:26 AM 3/1/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>Hello internals,
>
>   we have the consts:
>
>#define ZEND_HASH_APPLY_KEEP                            0
>#define ZEND_HASH_APPLY_REMOVE                          1<<0
>#define ZEND_HASH_APPLY_STOP                            1<<1
>
>and the apply functions:
>ZEND_API void zend_hash_apply(HashTable *ht, apply_func_t apply_func 
>TSRMLS_DC);
>ZEND_API void zend_hash_apply_with_argument(HashTable *ht, 
>apply_func_arg_t apply_func, void * TSRMLS_DC);
>ZEND_API void zend_hash_apply_with_arguments(HashTable *ht, 
>apply_func_args_t apply_func, int, ...);
>
>as well as:
>ZEND_API void zend_hash_reverse_apply(HashTable *ht, apply_func_t 
>apply_func TSRMLS_DC);
>
>we also have strange uscase:
>static int clean_non_persistent_constant(zend_constant *c TSRMLS_DC)
>{
>         if (c->flags & CONST_PERSISTENT) {
>                 return EG(full_tables_cleanup) ? 0 : ZEND_HASH_APPLY_STOP;
>         } else {
>                 return EG(full_tables_cleanup) ? 1 : ZEND_HASH_APPLY_REMOVE;
>         }
>}
>
>which actually would be the same as:
>static int clean_non_persistent_constant(zend_constant *c TSRMLS_DC)
>{
>         if (c->flags & CONST_PERSISTENT) {
>                 return EG(full_tables_cleanup) ? 
> ZEND_HASH_APPLY_KEEP : ZEND_HASH_APPLY_REMOVE;
>         } else {
>                 return ZEND_HASH_APPLY_REMOVE;
>         }
>}
>
>because normal apply functions only consider 0 and non 0.
>Only the revese apply function takes the STOP constant into account.
>Now obviously the case where a mixture of integres and consts is being
>used didn't lead to a problem but we should make them correct anyway.
>
>But i think we should also aim to make all apply functions aware of the
>STOP const becuase in some cases it would mean a speedup.
>
>Best regards,
>  Marcus