tedd wrote:
It's not that it's not allowed, it's that it should be done
differently. You should make the function accept a reference in the
definition, not pass in a reference to the function.
The manual page has a good, simple example on what to do.
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.references.pass.php
Chris:
Interesting. One would think (at least I do) it should be the other way
around.
Using the example given at the link above:
<?php
function foo(&$var)
{
$var++;
}
$a=5;
foo($a);
// $a is 6 here
?>
We have one function that works one way.
<?php
function foo($var)
{
$var++;
}
$a=5;
foo(&$a);
// $a is 6 here
?>
However, doing it this way, the function can serve two purposes. I can
send it a reference or I could send it a value. I know that in this
function a value doesn't do anything, but it could if the function was
different.
Plus, in the first function, I can't send it a reference (i.e., a
reference to a reference?).
I'd guess it's to simplify things.
Having been involved in a big cms that used references all over the
place (everything was OO), it was extremely hard to find / track down
where they should be and where they were missing - which caused memory
blow-outs where they were not used, and segfault crashes where they were
incorrectly used.
If they were all in the function definitions, I don't have to worry
about that particular problem.
However, it's something the developers would have to give a definitive
answer on.
--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
