On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, at 22:01, Faizan Akram Dar wrote: > Hi, > > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, 20:55 Paul M. Jones, <pmjo...@pmjones.io> wrote: >> >> > On Feb 25, 2025, at 09:55, ignace nyamagana butera <nyamsp...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > The problem with your suggestion is that the specification from WHATWG and >> > RFC3986/3987 are so different and that the function you are proposing >> > won't be able to cover the outcome correctly (ie give the developper all >> > the needed information). This is why, for instance, Maté added the getRaw* >> > method alongside the normalized getter (method without the Raw prefix). >> >> The two functions need not return an identical array of components; e.g., >> the 3986 parsing function might return an array much like parse_url() does >> now, and the WHATWG function might return a completely different array of >> components (one that includes the normalized and/or raw components). >> >> All of this is to say that the parsing functionality does not have to be in >> an object to be useful *both* to the internal API *and* to userland. > > >> > > It most definitely needs to be an object. Arrays are awful DX wise, there is > array shape which modern IDEs like phpstorm support and so does static > analysis but the overall experience remains subpar compared to classes (and > objects).
I’m curious why you say this other than an opinion about developer experience? Arrays are values, objects are not. A parsed uri seems more like a value and less like an object. Just reading through the comments so far, it appears that whatever is used will just be wrapped in library code regardless, for userland code, but the objective is to be useful for other extensions and core code. In that case, a hashmap is much easier to work with than a class. Looking at the objectives of the RFC and the comments here, it almost sounds like it is begging to be a simple array instead of an object. — Rob
