Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50762
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.42 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
         :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=T/bHQ1oraOkhqldR6GU20aHmz48UdrnBTI112QIzWk465VKcCJH2P1px5YEGlKppij
         fQjIbD3rNc1p+bmb71txVnhntIV7IG7p5BFiML5sZ9TbKoFR6Gk4mjKatk+wLjGVrSBc
         NsgANA/f8vRjhvsw1v9t88SaJJirB3C6msNZ4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: RQuadling@googlemail.com
In-Reply-To: <4CF613EB.40200@sugarcrm.com>
References: <ae7aa0536c47a2ac725222d49918183f.squirrel@webmail.basnetworks.net>
 <003601cb8fd0$f6494e80$e2dbeb80$@com> <4CF3B855.5010406@sugarcrm.com>
 <003401cb8fee$1be39840$53aac8c0$@com> <2450924ae03481f5b1382a7f00e5743d.squirrel@webmail.basnetworks.net>
 <4CF50245.5020807@sugarcrm.com> <ed0a2b6089e32bc3def3c14a1f510246.squirrel@webmail.basnetworks.net>
 <4CF5118B.2030300@sugarcrm.com> <1faa4c3db62771335db714507ac2adfa.squirrel@webmail.basnetworks.net>
 <4CF613EB.40200@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:57:08 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=okFXPw6=0p0mPK5LCAzh_-65uZpD13-C6rfJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: "president@basnetworks.net" <president@basnetworks.net>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: C-sharp style property get/set syntax for PHP
From: rquadling@gmail.com (Richard Quadling)

On 1 December 2010 09:22, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Its not a matter of consistency - Properties, as a cross-language concep=
t
>> are not meant to work that way. =C2=A0You need to think of a property as=
 a set
>
> Meant by whom? Is there some law of universe that prevents us from
> implementing the feature?
>
>> of two methods that just have a pretty syntax. =C2=A0Methods cannot be u=
nset,
>> and nor should properties be allowed to. =C2=A0isset() should simply tel=
l us
>> whether a property with the specified name is part of the class or not.
>
> If you need methods, why not use methods? If you mimick object properties=
,
> however, it makes sense to make them work exactly like property, otherwis=
e
> you have to explain why they don't work this way.
>
>> isset() in the way you suggest would just be confusing. =C2=A0It would a=
llow is
>> to say that a property does not exist, when in fact it does exist. =C2=
=A0This
>> is not logical.
>
> Sorry, from your answer I don't understand - what happens when you call
> isset($foo->property) and unset($foo->property)?

If we think of properties as this new entity for the language (rather
than somehow massaging existing entities to fit a new usage scenario),
then

isset($instance->property) will always return true for any defined
property. Even if the getter would return null. This is new behaviour
and can be easily documented. isset() for a property is more like
method_exists() than isset() on a variable.
With regard to unset($instance->property), from the manual ...

"The behavior of unset() inside of a function can vary depending on
what type of variable you are attempting to destroy."

So, we already have differing behaviour based upon context. Attempting
to destroy a property should through a non fatal error.

One idea I had was to keep just the get/set property methods and add
to them an additional parameter ...

<?php
public $seconds {
	public set($value, $unset =3D False) {
		if ($unset) {
			// unset() has been called on the property.
			// In this instance $value will be Null.
		} else {
			// set the property using the supplied $value.
		}
	},
	public get($isset =3D False) {
		if ($isset) {
			// isset() has been called on the property.
			// If the value is a non-destructive calculation then maybe
returning the comparison of the result of the calculation to null.
		} else {
			// return the value for this property.
		}
	}
};

So,

isset($instance->property) would call $instance->property->get(True);
unset($instance->property) would call $instance->property->set(Null, True);

This keeps just the 2 property methods. It still allows isset/unset
and allows the developer the option of handling them.




--=20
Richard Quadling
Twitter : EE : Zend
@RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY