Re: array_seek function
| From: | Derick Rethans | Date: | Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:09:33 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: array_seek function | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-47376@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Felix De Vliegher wrote:
> On 17-mrt-2010, at 17:52, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Felix De Vliegher wrote:
> >
> >> On 17-mrt-2010, at 17:27, Frederic Hardy wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Why not use arrayIterator::seek() ?
> >>
> >> Because the functionality isn't exactly the same.
> >> ArrayIterator::seek() only sets the array pointer, array_seek would
> >> also return the value + have fseek()-like functionality with the
> >> SEEK_* consts and optional negative offsets.
> >
> > To be honest, I'd rather have the proposed array_seek() return a status
> > whether the seek worked or not. Notices are uncool and you can already
> > retrieve data/key with key() and current().
> >
>
> Update: http://phpbenelux.eu/array_seek-return.patch.txt
> I've kept the fseek()-style return values (0 when fine, -1 when seek fails)
Any reason why you picked that over the (IMO more logical) true/false
approach?
with kind regards,
Derick
--
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug