On 23 Sep 2006, at 16:46, Robert Cummings wrote:
And the likelihood of you having a property called Myclassfield1 is?
Sure, but don't you think that coding should at least try to be driven by logic rather than luck? I'm also not denying that it's not too hard to work around (with a function not dissimilar to what you suggested), but I'd really prefer it if it just did what it says on the tin. By its very nature, casting from object to array indicates that you no longer want the constraints of property protection, which an array can't preserve anyway, and it's not as if there are not intentional, documented methods of obtaining this information.
It sounds like they've helped out by giving more data than was necessary.
...and in doing so defaults to breaking code that expects it to behave like the documentation says it does? I don't think I'd classify that as helping out. Bear in mind that my code broke in exactly this way. If you want to find out what the access level of a property is, I doubt your first thought would be to convert it to an array - and I bet you didn't know that this info was even there because it's not documented, thus helping nobody. This is what introspection is for. I don't have a problem with being provided with extra information, just as long as it doesn't interfere with correct operation, which is what it currently does. It could provide the extra info in a marginally less destructive way, for example by adding 'private' and 'protected' array properties containing field names for each access level to the resulting array. OTOH, that would break what you'd expect count() to deliver after the conversion. I really think it should just do what's it's meant to, and no more.
Marcus -- Marcus Bointon Synchromedia Limited: Creators of http://www.smartmessages.net/ marcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
