Re: Pseudo-objects (methods on arrays, strings, etc.)

On 17.07.2012, at 21:03, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> This idea has been proposed many times in the past and it is actually >> a very good proposal, for array, string or other types. > > If we have "$array->foo()", we should also have "class foo extends > array" which allows to override foo() in array. This will require some > serious changes, which need to be RFCed and reviewed and seen if they > can really fit the language properly. Just saying "let's bolt on method > calls on top of arrays" is definitely not very good. Having OO Array > type may be good, if we will be able to figure out suitable design that > will allow the same flexibility and power as regular arrays - though I'm > not sure how to do it now. > >> The only reason why it is not yet implemented is the technical >> complexity to do it. We need pseudo objects and the likes, and it is >> really not something easy to do, in an efficient enough way. > > I disagree - I do not think we need pseudo-objects. If the only point of > the exercise is to convert a call of array_pop to $array->pop, it's not > worth it. It'd just make the language more messy - you wouldn't know > what -> means anymore. +1 I am for making array a proper class with methods. "Legacy" functions can be implemented as wrappers around it: function array_push(&$array, $value) { $array->push($value); } There is absolutely no sense in creating new "pseudo object" entity. It would just add tons of confusion. p.s. in case of array, we already have http://docs.php.net/ArrayObject which is a good starting point

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail signature.asc