Re: SESSION problem

At 3:06 PM +0100 8/16/08, Stut wrote:

Not really, since I would never name a session variable 1, or 2, or 5318008 - I would always put those in the session in a named array.

That's understandable. But, if you came from a background that predated associate arrays, then using numeric indexes would seem more natural. To me arrays come in two types, those with numeric indexes and those with string indexes. I use both.

I wish I understood the reason why it's like this but I've never looked into the session extension in that level of detail, but I doubt such a limitation would exist if there was not a very good reason for it. But again, I don't see how this is relevant.

I never said it was relevant. I am sure too that whatever the reason was, it made sense at the time and for the problem of the time -- similar to the a1 < z discussion of a couple of years back.

It's natural to me to see the session array as a filing cabinet. At the top level you would have files with names that indicate what they are. Within each file it may be further divided into numbered sections. Given that I can't see into the future, even if I currently only have one set of data (file) to store in the session (the filing cabinet) I wouldn't just chuck the bits of paper from the file into the filing cabinet. I'd leave them in the file such that when I need to add a new file I don't need to gather up all the other bit of paper into a single file to get it organised again. Ok, that didn't quite make it as clear as I wanted it to but I hope it illustrates the point I'm trying to make. The root level of the session array (IMHO) should contain descriptive keys, and I've never been in a situation where 5318008 is descriptive and gives context to the data unless you turn it upside down!

I understand what you are saying -- semantics are important. But if there is a need for temporary place to store values I don't consider it bad form to store them in a numerically indexed array. For example, if a user was going to purchase up to 10 items, I see nothing wrong is using: user_purchase[0] = $item0; ... user_purchase[9] = $item9; And as such, one can easily extract what the user purchased by simply using for(). However, in this case I don't see the gain provided by using: user_purchase['item1'] = $item0; ... user_purchase['item9'] = $item9; But that distinction would be required IF you were using SESSIONs. And that's one of my points -- normal arrays come in two types and the SESSION array don't. Cheers, tedd -- ------- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com