Re: array_seek function
| From: | Felix De Vliegher | Date: | Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:36:14 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: array_seek function | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-47378@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 17-mrt-2010, at 19:09, Derick Rethans wrote:
> 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?
No, just to keep it similar to fseek(). Either way works for me.
Felix