Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39787 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 19273 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2008 23:49:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Aug 2008 23:49:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=stas@zend.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=stas@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.163 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: stas@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.25.124.163 il-gw1.zend.com Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 Received: from [212.25.124.163] ([212.25.124.163:18979] helo=il-gw1.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FD/03-02575-E9BDC984 for ; Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:49:50 -0400 Received: from us-ex1.zend.com ([192.168.16.5]) by il-gw1.zend.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 9 Aug 2008 02:50:36 +0300 Received: from [192.168.16.110] ([192.168.16.110]) by us-ex1.zend.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 8 Aug 2008 16:50:33 -0700 Message-ID: <489CDBC9.30601@zend.com> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:50:33 -0700 Organization: Zend Technologies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: Marcus Boerger , PHP Internals References: <489CAD75.2060404@zend.com> <1961502655.20080809000521@marcus-boerger.de> <489CC5BD.4060701@zend.com> <221319091.20080809002725@marcus-boerger.de> <489CCB62.8010406@zend.com> <122515992.20080809010008@marcus-boerger.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2008 23:50:33.0278 (UTC) FILETIME=[8BF695E0:01C8F9B1] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] by-ref return & inheritance From: stas@zend.com (Stanislav Malyshev) Hi! > I know that we don't like to add new magic methods, but this case > seems to require new ones. What's about __getByRef (and its setter > equivalent if it is also not supported yet)? Why would we need that? We already have perfectly good __get, which can perfectly return by-ref. The question is only if we allow override __get that was declared by-val with __get that is declared by-ref. As for __set, __set doesn't return anything at all, so it's not very relevant anyway. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com