On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 14:09, Jason Barnett wrote: > Robert Cummings wrote: > ... > > > > Yeah, *grin*. And on that note, there are times when you will actually > > want $foo = &new SomeClass(); versus $foo = new SomeClass(); since > > assigning by reference will break any previous references -- something I > > forgot to mention to Matthew Weier when he challenged the relevance of > > the snippet I sent. > > > > Cheers, > > Rob. > > Indeed... Matt, hope you see this one. I was quite surprised by the > results as well! > > Rob, since you're explaining this to us now then I assume that the dev > team is well aware of this issue and this is intended behavior... or is > this something that will be fixed/changed so that we don't have copies > of references floating around? Because that seems very unintuitive to > me... references to references seems like a better "default" behavior > unless there's a good reason why we shouldn't change. This is intentional behaviour, there are times when you want a copy of a reference and there are times when you want a reference to a reference. For instance consider the following: $foo1 = $foo2 = $foo3 = new a(); $foo2 = new b(); If these were references to references instead of copies of references then $foo1, $foo2, and $foo3 would all now refer to the newly created b object. Cheers, Rob. -- .------------------------------------------------------------. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :------------------------------------------------------------: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `------------------------------------------------------------' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
