In PHP4, you could do:
function test()
{
return array(1,2,3);
}
$var = array_shift(test());
PHP 5.0 broke this. There was a fatal error on the array_shift that
only variables could be passed by reference. There was a good argument
for it. So, we started migrating our code.
Well, seems this works in 5.1. So, my question is, was it an
intentional "fix" or will this break again and we need to continue to
watch for this?
Brian.
Brian Moon wrote:
In PHP4, you could do:
function test()
{
return array(1,2,3);
}$var = array_shift(test());
PHP 5.0 broke this. There was a fatal error on the array_shift that
only variables could be passed by reference. There was a good argument
for it. So, we started migrating our code.Well, seems this works in 5.1. So, my question is, was it an
intentional "fix" or will this break again and we need to continue to
watch for this?
In 5.1 this now throws an E_STRICT instead of a warning. It is still a
bad idea to pass a tempvar by reference, so yes, you should strive to
write E_STRICT clean code.
-Rasmus
Hello Rasmus,
RL> In 5.1 this now throws an E_STRICT instead of a warning. It is still a
RL> bad idea to pass a tempvar by reference, so yes, you should strive to
RL> write E_STRICT clean code.
At the possible expense of being blamed and flamed, I'll say it...
ifsetor($var, 'default') would go a long way to accommodate E_STRICT
code.
--
Best regards,
Jason mailto:jason@ionzoft.com
Wednesday, April 26, 2006, 6:41:26 PM, you wrote:
RL> Brian Moon wrote:
In PHP4, you could do:
function test()
{
return array(1,2,3);
}$var = array_shift(test());
PHP 5.0 broke this. There was a fatal error on the array_shift that
only variables could be passed by reference. There was a good argument
for it. So, we started migrating our code.Well, seems this works in 5.1. So, my question is, was it an
intentional "fix" or will this break again and we need to continue to
watch for this?
RL> In 5.1 this now throws an E_STRICT instead of a warning. It is still a
RL> bad idea to pass a tempvar by reference, so yes, you should strive to
RL> write E_STRICT clean code.
RL> -Rasmus
In 5.1 this now throws an
E_STRICTinstead of a warning. It is still a
bad idea to pass a tempvar by reference, so yes, you should strive to
writeE_STRICTclean code.
Yeah, its more of a question of rewriting 6 years of PHP or not. We
were half way done when we upgraded the dev machines to 5.1.
Brian.
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
PHP 5.0 broke this. There was a fatal error on the array_shift that
only variables could be passed by reference. There was a good
argument for it. So, we started migrating our code.Well, seems this works in 5.1. So, my question is, was it an
intentional "fix" or will this break again and we need to continue to
watch for this?In 5.1 this now throws an
E_STRICTinstead of a warning. It is still a
bad idea to pass a tempvar by reference, so yes, you should strive to
writeE_STRICTclean code.
Stupid question: why is it a bad idea?
I would expect these to be equivalent for all intents and purposes:
func_taking_reference(some_func());
and
$temp = some_func();
func_taking_reference($temp);
where $temp is never used again and quickly passes out of scope.
Is there some reason that they are not considered equivalent, or that they
cannot or should not be made equivalent?
I seem to remember a reason being quoted for all these reference-related changes
something like it can cause memory corruption. But that would appear to be an
implementation bug, not an essential difficulty, as if it were really memory
corruption I can't imagine it being turned back on in 5.1. :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
PHP 5.0 broke this. There was a fatal error on the array_shift that
only variables could be passed by reference. There was a good
argument for it. So, we started migrating our code.Well, seems this works in 5.1. So, my question is, was it an
intentional "fix" or will this break again and we need to continue to
watch for this?In 5.1 this now throws an
E_STRICTinstead of a warning. It is still a
bad idea to pass a tempvar by reference, so yes, you should strive to
writeE_STRICTclean code.Stupid question: why is it a bad idea?
Check the mailing-list archive - there was a long discussion on this topic
some 4, 5 months ago.
I would expect these to be equivalent for all intents and purposes:
func_taking_reference(some_func());
and
$temp = some_func();
func_taking_reference($temp);where $temp is never used again and quickly passes out of scope.
Is there some reason that they are not considered equivalent, or that they
cannot or should not be made equivalent?
Yes, of course :-) Nothing happens by chance here.
I seem to remember a reason being quoted for all these reference-related
changes something like it can cause memory corruption. But that would
appear to be an implementation bug, not an essential difficulty, as if it
were really memory corruption I can't imagine it being turned back on in
5.1. :)-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
--
Cyberly yours,
Petar Nedyalkov
Devoted Orbitel Fan :-)
PGP ID: 7AE45436
PGP Public Key: http://bu.orbitel.bg/pgp/bu.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 7923 8D52 B145 02E8 6F63 8BDA 2D3F 7C0B 7AE4 5436
Brion Vibber wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
PHP 5.0 broke this. There was a fatal error on the array_shift that
only variables could be passed by reference. There was a good
argument for it. So, we started migrating our code.Well, seems this works in 5.1. So, my question is, was it an
intentional "fix" or will this break again and we need to continue to
watch for this?
In 5.1 this now throws anE_STRICTinstead of a warning. It is still a
bad idea to pass a tempvar by reference, so yes, you should strive to
writeE_STRICTclean code.Stupid question: why is it a bad idea?
Well, the original reason was because it caused weird and wonderful
memory corruption in PHP 4.3.x, so if your code is ever going to run on
that version you really need to not do that.
It also tends to be a bug. Most functions that take an argument by
reference do so for a reason. There are of course exceptions to this as
you have pointed out and in those cases assuming your code will never
run under PHP 4.3.x it can be valid. I would still say it is a better
idea to something like:
func_taking_reference($quiet=some_func()); // throw away ref mod
and document the fact that you are intentionally throwing away the
reference modification that func_taking_reference is making. That way
you avoid the E_STRICT and make it very clear what you are doing.
You could make the same argument for using undefined variables. Often
that indicates a bug so the E_NOTICE can be really helpful, but other
times it just gets in the way. I don't think that means we should do
away with the E_NOTICE on that and I also don't think it means you
shouldn't try to write E_NOTICE clean code.
-Rasmus
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:24:55 -0400, in php.internals
rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) wrote:
It also tends to be a bug. Most functions that take an argument by
reference do so for a reason. There are of course exceptions to this as
you have pointed out and in those cases assuming your code will never
run under PHP 4.3.x it can be valid. I would still say it is a better
idea to something like:func_taking_reference($quiet=some_func()); // throw away ref mod
and document the fact that you are intentionally throwing away the
reference modification that func_taking_reference is making. That way
you avoid theE_STRICTand make it very clear what you are doing.
It seems like a lot of these problems showed up because people used
array_shift(), array_pop() or other such functions as a shortcut of
retrieving an element returned from a function.
I agree with the changes, but it still seems like people (mis)use
these functions because of lack of array operators (e.g.
array(2,4,3)[1] ).
I don't know if I would go that far to state that there is a demand
for such operators (and the discussion has been going on here before).
But if there is no (just as) simple way of doing it right users will
do it in a bad way.
--
- Peter Brodersen