Re: Allows arrays to be type-hinted with interfaces mimicking Array behaviour

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 3:38:16 AM CST Rowan Collins wrote: > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 02:44, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > > Yes, a lot of existing code uses arrays as anonymous structs. Such code > > is, > > IMO, "doing it wrong". That includes PHP default behavior in many cases. > > The > > super-globals are one of the exceptions, as since by definition you don't > > know > > what the keys could be in advance you need some sort of generic accessor. > > > > superglobals anyway on the grounds that globals are evil (fact check: > > true). > > There is often an object wrapping around the session that has get() and > > set() > > object be kind-of-array-ish-for-some-part-of-array-ish-ness is a > > long-standing > > problem, no question. iterable was a good addition. I think there was > > discussion of a countable type hint at one point, but I don't think it > > made it > > That leaves ArrayAccessible (aka, you can put [] after it and something > > useful > > happens), which is what you describe. I would not be against adding such > > a > > instead of an object is Just Plain Wrong(tm). Even a bare public property > > class is superior in every possible way, before we even get into questions > > of > > useful accessor methods. > > > > be. (Eg, parsing JSON, GET or POST parameters, etc.) > > 2) You're being sloppy and not thinking through your API. > > struct into an object that has appropriate accessors that can then handle > > error cases, missing values, etc. Not doing so results in things like, > > say, > > particular anonymous-struct was missing a certain key, which I didn't know > > was > > possible, but it broke the whole application. (Seriously, that was my > > entire > > struct, even if you're using __get() or ArrayAccerss to do it. (SimpleXML > > is > > an example of that approach, for better or worse.) > > where you have to care, but those are edge-casey. > > > > ArrayAccessible is a code smell, and the solution is to properly structure > > your data and type hint on a defined class instead. Including an > > ArrayAccessible pseudo-type would be just a matter of completeness, not > > something I would advise anyone actually use. > > Hi Larry, > > The above post seems to have been mangled somewhere and lost some of its > text. It's mostly readable anyway (and I think I agree with what's there) > but if you have a copy of the original anywhere, you might want to re-post > it. > > Regards, <expletive deleted> No, I don't. That's the second time KMail has eaten half a message on me. I am now officially in the market for a new local mail client, because that's JUST NOT OK, KMAIL! The gist is that if you're dealing with unknown foreign data (JSON, GET/POST, etc.) you should be wrapping the raw structure into an object that provides a better interface, default value handling, error handling, etc. If you know what the keys are in advance, make it an explicit class, period. So while I would be OK with an ArrayAccessible type hint for completeness, I would view using it as a code smell. Insert debate about union types here, as it's bound to come up at this point. Excuse me while I go find a new Linux mail client that isn't a buggy data- losing <censored>. --Larry Garfield

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] This is a digitally signed message part. signature.asc