Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:23254
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <446370F9.9060105@smashlabs.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 12:14:33 -0500
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jochem Maas <jochem@iamjochem.com>
CC: Antony Dovgal <antony@zend.com>,  internals@lists.php.net
References: <446222C8.3090101@smashlabs.com> <44623E75.4070304@zend.com> <446273F7.2090702@iamjochem.com>
In-Reply-To: <446273F7.2090702@iamjochem.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP6 OOP compiler feature question / request
From: ralph@smashlabs.com (Ralph Schindler)

Precisely.  The point I was trying to make is that there should be fewer 
restrictions on method names of classes so that developers that are 
maintaining some distributable classes can keep the API clean.  I've 
found myself in a situation where instead of using a method call 
isset(), I must use something like has().. and instead of unset(), I use 
remove().  All the while, when I overload the __isset() and __unset() 
methods, they actually forward the request to has() and remove().

I can think of several classes where the common sense method is a keyword:

$session->isset($variable);
$session->unset($variable);
$trash->empty();
$long_hallway->echo();
$stage->exit();
$baseball_player->catch();
$baseball_player->throw();
$game_of_life_member->die();
$wood->break();
$vegetarian->food->steak->try();
$lawyer->case->try(); // double fault ;)

Now I'm getting silly, but that was what my point was ;)

-ralph



Jochem Maas wrote:
> Antony, I believe Ralph was using isset() and unset() purely
> as arbitrary examples, e.g:
> 
> class TestReservedKeywordMethods
> {
>     function unset() { echo "unset<br />"; }
>     function echo()  { echo "echo<br />";  }
>     function empty() { echo "empty<br />"; }
> }
> 
> $test = new TestReservedKeywordMethods();
> $test->unset();
> $test->echo();
> $test->empty();
> 
> PS: the underlying example does work, which gives me the feeling that
> it not so much an architechural limitation but rather a performance issue
> with regard to doing extra checks as to the context of an encoutered
> T_UNSET (for example) to determine whether it's okay, but I'm guessing
> really - (and it's probably is not exactly what Ralph is looking for):
> 
> class TestReservedKeywordMethods
> {
>     function __call($m) { echo "$m<br />"; }
> }
> 
> $test = new TestReservedKeywordMethods();
> $test->unset();
> $test->echo();
> $test->empty();
> 
> 
> 
> Antony Dovgal wrote:
>>
>> __isset() and __unset() methods are what you're looking for.
>> They are available since 5.1.0.
>>
>> See http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.overloading.php
>>
>> On 10.05.2006 21:28, Ralph Schindler wrote:
>>
>>> Architectural restrictions aside, is it far off to ask if something 
>>> like this could be possible in PHP6:
>>>
>>> <?
>>>
>>> class TestReservedKeywordMethods
>>> {
>>>      public $value = "2";
>>>
>>>      public function isset()
>>>      {
>>>          if (is_null($this->value))
>>>              return false;
>>>          else
>>>              return true;
>>>      }
>>>
>>>      public function unset()
>>>      {
>>>          $this->value = 0;
>>>      }
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> $test = new TestReservedKeywordMethods();
>>> $test->isset();
>>> $test->unset();
>>>
>>> ?>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>