On 27/10/14 04:08, Will Fitch wrote:
>
>> On Oct 26, 2014, at 9:43 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>>> I’m trying to wrap my head around a real-world use-case with
>>> this. We have spl_object_hash, which effectively provides a
>>> unique hash for
>>
>> This hash has nothing to do with object's contents. But imagine
>> number GMP("42") and imagine you actually want two GMP objects
>> expressing "42" actually represent the same hash key. Or imagine
>> you want to generate the key somehow in a way related to object's
>> content and not just a random number. As I said in the RFC,
>> evidence that so many languages implement it shows that this use
>> case is quite real. Of course, you can always default to
>> spl_object_hash, but now you have control over it.
>
> Thank you for your clarity. With this new approach, wouldn’t we best
> be served by renaming/deprecating/removing spl_object_hash? I’m
> concerned these different approaches will introduce quite a bit of
> confusion with object hashing. This RFC’s approach gives the user
> more power to determine what’s best in this case, so I’d lean more
> towards renaming spl_object_hash to something that reflects getting a
> unique ID per object (e.g. spl_unique_object_id, etc).
Actually, I see spl_object_hash($this) the 90% implementation of
__hash(), so how about making it the default for any object?
--
Regards,
Mike
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
