A while ago, I suggested using adding Container classes (such as
Collection, List, Map, etc.) to the Zend Framework. A page on the wiki
suggests that they are avoided, but I beleive that they can solve
problems like these.

What do you think?

Regards,

Allard

On 11/1/06, Alexander Veremyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes. Exactly.

"$this->a[]" is interpreted as "$this->__get('a')[]".
__get() creates 'temporary variable' for returned value (which is an
array) and then [] refers to 'a new element of this array', but doesn't
change original array. This 'temporary variable' is immediately
destroyed after the expression in which it used.
Thus, "$this->a[] = 1" is equal to:
-----
$tempArray = $this->__get('a');
$tempArray[] = 1;
unset($tempArray);
-----

There is the same problem with strings.

I think good way to manage this is an OO wrappers. It works also for
referencing property outside class scope.
PHP5 sends and returns objects "by reference", thus '[]' will work with
the same object instance, which is stored in an object property.
An example is the Zend_Pdf_PHPArray.


With best regards,
   Alexander Veremyev.


Matthew Ratzloff wrote:
> I consider this a bug in PHP itself, personally.  The solution is
> changing __get to something more like this:
>
> // Zend_View_Abstract::__get()
> public function __get($key)
> {
>    if ($key[0] != '_') {
>        if (!isset($this->_vars[$key])) {
>            $this->_vars[$key] = null;
>        }
>        return $this->_vars[$key];
>    }
> }
>
> This is because when you call $this->a[] = 1, PHP actually calls __get
> instead of __set.  There is no warning, error, or anything.  It just
> silently fails.
>
> -Matt
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolina Feher da Silva"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:32 PM
> Subject: [fw-general] Strange array bug?
>
>
>> Please paste this code in a view:
>>
>> $this->a = array();
>> $this->a[] = 1;
>> print_r($this->a);
>>
>> What do you get? I get an *empty* array. How come? I don't understand it.
>>
>
>


Reply via email to