Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50696 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 47896 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2010 15:08:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Nov 2010 15:08:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 207.97.245.153 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 207.97.245.153 smtp153.iad.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [207.97.245.153] ([207.97.245.153:45494] helo=smtp153.iad.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id EE/01-42097-FE1C3FC4 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:08:32 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp45.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 75B7290BCE; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:08:29 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp45.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 31BA490BC0; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:08:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4CF3C1E7.10205@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:08:23 +0100 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "RQuadling@googlemail.com" CC: Richard Quadling , "president@basnetworks.net" , "internals@lists.php.net" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: C-sharp style property get/set syntax for PHP From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > public property Hours read getHours write setHours; I actually like that, though I think we should support the whole existing semantics, i.e. get/set/isset/unset. And probably keep the names, so we don't call the same thing both "read" and "get". Having them called __get etc. would even remove the need for another keyword, probably, but this looks ugly :( -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227