Re: [RFC] Iterable

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Jeremy Mikola <jmikola@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@trowski.com> > wrote: > > > > > I plan on bringing the iterable RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/iterable) > > to a vote in about a week, does anyone have any further feedback on this > > proposal? > > > > Was there any discussion about a special allowance being made for stdClass? > > I've noted the is_iterable(new stdClass) example and ensuing "Object > Iteration" section: > > PHP allows any object to be used with foreach. However, iterable does not > > accept any object, only those implementing Traversable. Values accepted > > by iterable should be designed for iteration, not any set of values (such > > as the public properties of an object or a string). > > > > I'm on the fence if that second sentence applies to stdClass. Based on how > users typically end up with stdClass instances (e.g. casting arrays to an > object, json_decode()), I tend to think of them as logically equivalent to > associative arrays. To that end, I'd consider stdClass to be as "designed > for iteration" as any associative array -- if we can even say a stdClass > was designed at all :) > > As-is, the RFC requires users to either cast stdClass instances to an array > or decorate them with an Iterator (e.g. ArrayObject). I find this a bit > irksome, but it's certainly easy to work around. > > That said, I realize that voting is in progress and it's not my intention > to interrupt anything. I just wanted to relay a viewpoint that might not > have come up. > > -- > jeremy mikola > Instead of adding a special case to iterable, we could also make stdClass implement Traversable. (If we agree that stdClass is explicitly intended for iteration -- not so sure on that.) Nikita