Posted by Hendri Kurniawan on 04/20/07 05:53

Steve wrote:
> "Hendri Kurniawan" <ask-me@email.com> wrote in message
> news:132gjjaof54gv5a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> thanks hendri. btw, i didn't know you could do:
>
> foreach($value as $key=>$value)
>
> and expect to have the first $value preserved. i suppose though, thinking
> about it, php gets a single reference to the $value array and then works off
> the stack at that address. the second $value should be a new copy of the
> element at $key - the next loop still working from the old stack and not the
> new value of $value.
>
> it's not so much that i want an alternative, it's that i want to understand
> exactly why the hack works yet the straight-forward approach does not - even
> though the docs say it should. i'm just using array_walk to benchmark
> data-retrieval in a custom db class...rather than using a foreach on the
> records returned, i'd be trying to walk the records - goal being to
> standardize access methods, i.e. $records[0]['FOO'] as the structure...a row
> and field as keys. the foreach is pretty fast over 200K rows...just wanna
> see how much faster the native iteration is over the native enumeration. :)
> i'm just wierd like that.
>
> anyway, the code i posted here was me just playing with array_walk in a
> practical scenario. just trying to find out about what all i could do with
> the userdata param. that's when i ran into this bit of undefined behavior.
> and, isn't it wonderful that it is undefined yet a single character's
> correction would fix the problem - that character being '&' as a call-time
> by-reference.
>
> thanks for the help.
>
>


Yeah, glad to help.. It also challenges my mind not to be complacent.

Hendri

[Back to original message]