Re: Iterator Class/foreach Logic Flaw?

Hello Andi, hello all Monday, March 1, 2004, 3:46:56 PM, you wrote: > As I said I'm indifferent. It would be nice to have Marcus in this > discussion but he's on the PHP Cruise and I'm not sure how often he's > checking is email. never. Today i am back and checked 1K8 mails :-( I'll change it on monday or tuesday...and people i need you to verify i don't overlook an example or something else.... > At 09:21 AM 3/1/2004 -0500, Hans Lellelid wrote: >>Hi - >> >>Andi Gutmans wrote: >> >>>Well we don't have very much time anymore because I want to roll RC1 ASAP >>>(assuming that we get a couple of bugs fixed which need fixing). >>>Personally I'm fine with either of these (I don't mind hasMore()) but a >>>decision has to be reached quickly. From discussing with Marcus I don't >>>think he feels very strongly about it but like me doesn't think hasMore() >>>is so bad. People are used to this semantics IMO. >> >>Well, I think that it's confusing. I think that current users are used to >>the semantics, but right now it's a pretty small group using PHP5. I >>think that it'll be a lot harder to change something like this after >>release -- and I do think the current method naming is semantically >>wrong. Having implemented several Iterators, until now it's been a bit >>of a second-guess (have to go read the example in zend-engine2.php doc) >>every time. I think that this would be a lot clearer if it could be renamed. >> >>Clearly I don't know what is involved in renaming this method. >>Obviously it will break some existing code ... but it's an easy fix (since >>generally I assume the only code that would need to change is the >>implementing class) & better now then never IHMO. >> >>I know you want to roll RC1 asap -- I want that too (!) -- but I think it >>would be great if this change could be incorporated. Just my .02. >> >>Thanks, >>Hans >> -- Best regards, Marcus mailto:helly@php.net