Re: RFC: Add `final class Vector` to PHP

Hi Peter Bowyer, > That is a fair point. Vector is an overloaded and common word. For me a > vector will always default to an entity characterized by a magnitude and a > direction, because that's what I learned and used for years. The next > definition I learned was the Numpy one. > > That for me is the sticking point if this Vector allows mixed types which > include arrays or vectors. Store them inside a Vector and then you end up > with a matrix, a tensor and so-on in something identified as a Vector, > which is nonsense. Yes C++ does that [1]. Yes with generics it sort-of > makes sense. Numpy gets round it by calling the type ndarray > and a vector > is a specialised one-dimensional array. > > If it's a high-performance array and that's the goal, call it hparray. Call > it a tuple. Call it a dictionary. - hparray: I think putting high performance in any class name in core is a mistake, and generally poor naming choice, and will mislead users now or in the future. (unless it is literally an API client for a database or server that includes high performance in the server software's name) Benchmarks currently show it using less memory but some more time than array, and those benchmarks will change as opcache's internals or PHP's representation of objects or arrays change. Which choice of data structure is highest performance would depend on the benchmark or needs of the application/library. - tuple: In mathematics, most references I've heard of to tuples are generally fixed sizes (n-tuples). In programming, python and C++ and various other languages use tuple to refer to a fixed-size (and immutable) data structure, making this naming choice extremely confusing. https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/datastructures.html#tuples-and-sequences https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/tuple > (In C++)Class template std::tuple is a fixed-size collection of heterogeneous values. - dictionary - Wikipedia refers to this as an associative array https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_array which is the exact opposite of what my Vector RFC is proposing. So I don't consider any of those proposed names appropriate alternatives, and expect much, much stronger opposition to an RFC using that naming choice for this functionality. I expect opposition to any naming choice I propose; Vector is what I expect to have the least opposition. Thanks, Tyson