On 12-apr-2010, at 10:20, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Felix De Vliegher wrote:
>
>> On 17-mrt-2010, at 19:09, Derick Rethans wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Felix De Vliegher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17-mrt-2010, at 17:52, Derick Rethans wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Felix De Vliegher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17-mrt-2010, at 17:27, Frederic Hardy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not use arrayIterator::seek() ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the functionality isn't exactly the same.
>>>>>> ArrayIterator::seek() only sets the array pointer, array_seek would
>>>>>> also return the value + have fseek()-like functionality with the
>>>>>> SEEK_* consts and optional negative offsets.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be honest, I'd rather have the proposed array_seek() return a status
>>>>> whether the seek worked or not. Notices are uncool and you can already
>>>>> retrieve data/key with key() and current().
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Update: http://phpbenelux.eu/array_seek-return.patch.txt
>>>> I've kept the fseek()-style return values (0 when fine, -1 when seek fails)
>>>
>>> Any reason why you picked that over the (IMO more logical) true/false
>>> approach?
>>
>> No, it makes more sense to use the boolean return values, I was just
>> using your fseek() analogy. Although I still find it useful to return
>> the seeked value, and false when seek fails (basically how next(),
>> reset() and friends behave).
>
> Has this been added to trunk now? Or not yet?
No, still have it lying around. Can I commit this?
Cheers,
Felix