Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:22635
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <E8.26.28679.6462E244@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:05:56 -0800
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051229)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <442DCE06.8070307@iamjochem.com>
In-Reply-To: <442DCE06.8070307@iamjochem.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: __set() / __get() : limitation and/or unintentional behavoiur?
From: unknown@simplemachines.org ("Unknown W. Brackets")

The __set() method is called when a property of a class is set, __get() 
when a property is retrieved.

An array is simple a way of listing things; the array itself is a piece 
of data.  When you set a key in that array, you are not setting the 
array.  It may help to think of it like this:

$t = new T;

$t->insideClass = new T;

$t->insideClass->test = "testing!";

In this case, should __set() be called for both lines?  Or only for the 
first?  An array is exactly the same, except you cannot define a __set() 
method on it.

Anyway, I don't think this question belongs in internals, imho.

-[Unknown]

-------- Original Message --------

> I ran the following code on 5.0.4 and 5.1.0 with identical results...
> 
> Could someone shed light one whether the observed behaviour is
> intentional and/or correct?
> 
> I expected that one of the following would occur (which obviously 
> doesn't :-):
> 
> 1. the line commented with 'SET 2' would trigger a
> call to __set() (which should fail?).
> 
> 2. the key "test" would be set in the array returned
> by __get() but not it the relevant array stored in
> $this->array["insideArray"].
> 
> The reason I question whether what si observed below is wanted behaviour is
> because I thought the __set() functionality was there to be able
> to protect/control what stuffed into an object ... but apparently it's
> rather easy to side step.
> 
> tia,
> Jochem