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

Hi! > I really do not want to have a semantic discussion here. > > This syntax is sexy, allows us to clean our APIs, and is amazingly handy. I'm sorry, but I can't understand how we can seriously consider making object call syntax mean two entirely different things, create pseudo-objects that look like objects in some situations, but not other situation and generally make a huge mess out of whole object model - because "-> is sexy". Is this really a level we want to have in the discussion? And no, it does not "allow us to clean our APIs" - I again point out using -> has nothing to do with cleaning APIs. Repeating "clean APIs" as if it is some magic spell will not make false statement true, and the statement that using -> somehow cleans up APIs is false. Cleaning APIs and pseudo-objects are two completely different things, and nobody yet shown any relationship between the two. > The reasons why it is not yet implemented have been listed here, only > a matter of time :) IMHO the reason it's not implemented is because it makes very little sense, and only reason I've seen so far to do it is "because it's sexy". Come on. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227