Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:23512 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 61214 invoked by uid 1010); 17 May 2006 07:33:41 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 61199 invoked from network); 17 May 2006 07:33:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 May 2006 07:33:41 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.162.171.242 217-162-171-242.dclient.hispeed.ch Received: from ([217.162.171.242:28112] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id 1A/5B-19568-5D1DA644 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 03:33:41 -0400 Message-ID: <1A.5B.19568.5D1DA644@pb1.pair.com> To: internals@lists.php.net Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:33:38 +0200 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Macintosh/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <785810036.20060511193536@ionzoft.com> <44647B7A.2070301@php.net> <932738738.20060513112734@marcus-boerger.de> <837405862.20060513223403@ionzoft.com> <36828701.20060514110529@marcus-boerger.de> <31269879.20060514221212@marcus-boerger.de> <1327845846.20060514222154@marcus-boerger.de> <1562034641.20060516203354@marcus-boerger.de> <7.0.1.0.2.20060516235201.090f10a8@zend.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060516142654.02c78380@zend.com> <596643859.20060516233753@marcus-boerger.de> <7.0.1.0.2.20060516144030.039abe98@zend.com> <1531743211.20060516234945@marcus-boerger.de> <1014418169.20060516181322@ionzoft.com> <1677590447.20060517002135@marcus-boerger.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 217.162.171.242 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] private, protected, readonly, public From: cschneid@cschneid.com (Christian Schneider) Ron Korving wrote: > I'm a big fan of this keyword. No "pppp", and this is in fact clearer and > better than the readonly keyword I advocated. Great idea :) Just a quick question because I wasn't able to test any implementation yet: Does the new keyword conflict with functions/methods/properties of the same name? I.e. would class A { function readonly() { return false; } } still work? Otherwise we would have a *big* BC break issue. - Chris