Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:23316
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
	s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=Z4L1WGjY4sWnjgIP0xwjVVw6F86SJ2BBK0Pi87mfEC2G4GUzmHlF1RbhhebiDfOvVVgApzpCaGvxgnh7AgszjJNxc8eSjO5xZvGav0EECJ7PG//A1tpzenHoDR9tuBJf97+wNosA6RApweDyfRaiVMaWZnCAoPVlB5R54HpM5Lo=
Message-ID: <2e24b1e00605121216x6c873e0eo5efaf960f5e00a74@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:16:27 -0400
To: "Hartmut Holzgraefe" <hartmut@php.net>
Cc: "Bastian Grupe" <bgrupe@gmail.com>, "Jason Garber" <jason@ionzoft.com>, 
	internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <4464CF54.7070802@php.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_28150_32885088.1147461387816"
References: <785810036.20060511193536@ionzoft.com> <4464AC64.5050706@gmail.com>
	<4464C6C9.40307@php.net> <4464C8AE.1050806@gmail.com>
	<4464CF54.7070802@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] private, protected, readonly, public
From: itrebal@gmail.com

------=_Part_28150_32885088.1147461387816
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

It seems to me this would be a great option to add. How difficult would it
be? Would it take significant editing of the source code? I don't see the
issue in adding it - seems like it would have plenty of places to be used.
Though, if it is added, the name 'readonly' seems a little misleading. It
gives off the idea of being able to set it, and not edit again, and not onl=
y
being able to edit it inside the class.

On 5/12/06, Hartmut Holzgraefe <hartmut@php.net> wrote:
>
> Bastian Grupe wrote:
> > Blame my recent use of Java here ;-)
> >
> > Well, I think the whole point of ppp is to having to use setters and
> > getters consistently.
>
> i'm going to blame your use of Java for this one, ppp is way older
> than the setter/getter fashion and as far as i remember the main
> reason to introduce the setter/getter pattern into java was to
> have a standard way for Java IDEs to provide access to Java Bean
> properties in property dialogs in their GUI design tools
>
> > I personally wouldn't like to be able to access some members which are
> > private, and not others. It just *feels* wrong.
>
> Think of it as a more fine grained permission system, like unix
> file attributes. Reading and writing a property value are two
> different operations and it makes sense to distinguish access
> rights not only by ownership but also by type of operation.
>
> > And I don't know whether or not less typing is really a good argument i=
n
> > this situation (think unreadable code in shortcut-ish programming
> > languages).
>
> Less typing is not an argument by itself, else we'd all do APL
>
> But less typing is less error prone (and no, plese *don't* mention
> auto-completion here ;), it can be less readable, too, and in this
> special case it spreads information that should be in one place.
> Maintainability can become an issue, too.
>
> Take a look at typical PHP class implementations: they have
> all properties on top followed by the member functions. So to find
> out whether a private property is really provite or whether it has
> a getter or even a setter, too, i would have to browse the full
> class code.
>
>    class example {
>      private $foo;
>      private $bar;
>      [... more properties ...]
>
>      function __construct() {...}
>      function __destruct() {...}
>
>      function getFoo() {...}
>
>      [... more code ...]
>    }
>
> So $foo is readonly here and $bar is really private. Or wait,
> maybe we have just overlooked getBar()?
>
> With
>
>    readonly $foo;
>
> on the other hand you have all the information in one place.
>
> If you want to go the getter/setter path all the way then we
> wouldn't need all the ppp stuff anymore alltogether, we would
> just make everything private and have the getter and setter
> decide (using instanceof on $this etc.) the access rights.
>
>
> --
> Hartmut Holzgraefe, Senior Support Engineer                            .
> MySQL AB, www.mysql.com
>
> Are you certified? http://www.mysql.com/training/certification
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


--=20
------------------------------------
Graham Christensen
www.itrebal.com
www.iamgraham.net

------=_Part_28150_32885088.1147461387816--