Re: A little syntactic sugar on array_* function calls?
| From: | Sara Golemon | Date: | Wed, 26 May 2021 21:31:43 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: A little syntactic sugar on array_* function calls? | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-114627@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 2:36 PM Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote:
> On May 26, 2021, at 2:34 PM, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:
>
>
> What I don't like about the specific proposal is that it's just a little
> too magic in its function selection and argument mapping. There's also the
> fact that it doesn't leave room to improve specifics about the
> implementations of the methods. I'd much rather seen an
>
Array class
> defined with specific methods declared on it.
>
>
> Wouldn't an Array class necessarily result in
> array-incompatible
> pass-by-reference semantics, which is one of the same issues with userland
> using ArrayObject as an array replacement?
>
>
It would if the Array objects got returned. I'm instead picturing an
instance that magically comes into being solely for the duration of the
method call. Once the method returns, the object vanishes.
-Sara