Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:42622
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 72.14.220.156 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=jKcaEzJyXKSfqhkzlYgWW3Fd8X0stSMz+5S2zo0MNiI/VYMtBdAZGaMhyzy29RadsR
         CrY39KvX9nW4VaLlYXl6bRbspmlkX9ndRbQJYmiXQvHvyMhSxtuSCAEj6kuHgJaQLuKw
         CB1iHG0gCdM56jNcfIM3rvkVD3Z48bE8BCgLE=
Message-ID: <496E6030.7000708@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:59:12 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081204 Thunderbird/3.0b1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>
CC: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <1016989528.20090112233204@marcus-boerger.de> <496BCD33.4080703@zend.com> <133861245.20090113225847@marcus-boerger.de> <496D2074.3070303@zend.com> <496DD269.4050701@gmail.com> <496E12CE.2080403@zend.com>
In-Reply-To: <496E12CE.2080403@zend.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] prototyping
From: ionut.g.stan@gmail.com (Ionut Gabriel Stan)

Hi,

On 1/14/2009 18:29, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> That is one example of convoluted code that is already possible. If a 
>> developer creates such a mess is his fault.
>
> "Convoluted"? "Mess"? Are you kidding me? It's standard usage of 
> access handlers.
I don't understand how that could be standard when the example was about 
calling overloaded properties, which isn't yet possible in the language, 
as you vigilantly observed.

Now, regardless whether is convoluted or not, you must agree that is 
better having callable properties in the language and documenting that 
this won't apply for overloaded properties. In the end you don't really 
need callable overloaded properties as a developer already has access to 
the internals of a class, thus __call() is all he needs to implement 
them (there would be at least a magic call anyway). It's a trade off but 
a worthy one in my opinion. Just as right now it is being documented 
that in order to call a lambda assigned to an instance property you need 
a temporary variable, it could be easily documented that one should not 
expect callable overloaded properties and must instead implement __call 
beside the standard __get/__set.
It's a WTF but a smaller one this time. Anyway, there may be stronger 
arguments against so I'm interested in your opinion.

Thanks,
I. Stan