I also thought about similar approach for "object by value case". I think, first we should accept the proposed in thic RFC behavior. It's consistent, and more comatible with PHP5. Later, if we decide to merge zend_array with HashTable we may try to change it.
Thanks. Dmitry. On Jan 31, 2015 4:18 PM, "Nikita Popov" <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to start discussion about fixing inconsistent "foreach" >> statement behavior. >> The implementation is almost done. It not only fixes inconsistencies in a >> defined by RFC way but also improves performance in most usual cases, >> because now foreach by value over array doesn't require array duplication. >> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php7_foreach >> >> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1034 >> >> I'm going to continue work on implementation improvement and may be >> fixing related behavior of some internal functions when they used on array >> iterated by foreach by reference (e.g. array_unshift()). However, the >> conceptual behavior defined in RFC is not going to be changed anymore. >> >> Thanks. Dmitry. >> > > I think the new behavior introduced by this RFC is much more consistent > than what we have right now. Previously things depended on details of > refcounting and hashing and had very weird interaction with current() etc. > Now the behavior looks clear for all cases. > > There's just one thing I'd like to discuss: The object by-value case: > > Currently this is handled in much the same way as array by-reference, i.e. > changes to the object will influence iteration. Currently we can't > implement this any differently, however if we always use zend_array instead > of HashTable (and fully support refcounting for this), as has been > suggested in another thread, we could handle this case the same way as > arrays (i.e. just add a refcount to the properties zend_array). Assuming we > can implement it this way, I'm not totally sure which behavior makes more > sense. On one hand it would make arrays and plain objects work the same > way. On the other hand arrays and objects have different copying semantics > in other places as well. > > Anyway, big +1 on this, thanks for implementing it. > > Nikita >
