Philip Olson wrote:
>>> $foo = array('a' => 'apple', 'b' => 'banana');
>>>
>>> // Notice - Undefined offset: 1
>>> // Notice - Undefined offset: 0
>>> list($a,$b) = $foo;
>>
>>Isn't this line should be
>>
>>list($a, $b) = array_keys($foo);
>>or
>>list($a, $b) = array_values($foo);
>
>
> Sure that works.
>
>
>>I might miss you point, since it seems we are
>>going to make these feature requests bogus.
>
>
> Why? list() working with associative arrays
> seems bogus to you? Please be specific as to
> why this is bad. Why is requiring keys indices
> to begin at 0 good or necessary? I can't think
> of a case where this will be bad for a php user.
> Imho it's intuitive.
I'm still not sure what the result should be....
valus, keys, key=>value, or else.
> Sure it's not a major deal and more pressing
> needs exist but hey, what can I say. :)
Since we have following syntax
list($ret_val1, $ret_val2) = some_function();
It sounds like a good idea to support following
syntax for consistency.
list($value_of_elem1, $value_of_elem2) = $foo;
We need to consider how to handle assoc array.
Following script works,
<?php
function foo() {
return array('a', 'b');
}
list($a, $b) = foo();
echo $a.$b;
?>
But this one does not,
<?php
function foo() {
return array('a'=>'A', 'b'=>'B');
}
list($a, $b) = foo();
echo $a.$b;
?>
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
