|
|
Posted by Jason Barnett on 06/24/05 21:09
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.
#!/usr/local/bin/php
<?php
class a
{
public $changes = 1;
function __construct() {
$this->changes++;
}
}
class b
{
}
$aObj = new a();
$aRef = &new a();
$bObj = new b();
$foo1 = $aObj;
$foo2 = $aObj;
$foo3 = $foo1;
$foo4 = &$foo2;
$foo5 = $aRef;
$foo6 = &$aRef;
$foo1->changes = 'I changed!';
echo "------------------\n";
print_r( $foo1 );
print_r( $foo2 );
print_r( $foo3 );
print_r( $foo4 );
print_r( $foo5 );
print_r( $foo6 );
$foo1 = $bObj;
$foo2 = $bObj;
$foo5 = $bObj;
echo "------------------\n";
print_r( $foo1 );
print_r( $foo2 );
print_r( $foo3 );
print_r( $foo4 );
print_r( $foo5 );
print_r( $foo6 );
$foo1 = &$aObj;
?>
--
NEW? | http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
STFA | http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-general&w=2
STFM | http://php.net/manual/en/index.php
STFW | http://www.google.com/search?q=php
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|