Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50770
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.170 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;
        b=DeANWfs6APJvg6/IFkR0WyfE3vMo8u9REe0tKEAGdU7JqxrFuGQE8rhgXhTc7WmKX5
         WTWYOcI5H0Si5qAORQSVk9uCP15pb/P2u1vMmoHZT1+69rYLzL1x8XnDaBtHnY5R0PZn
         JNfFyEEsavu9EbMSZOW/jN1QO3jH9kKdSGO+k=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: RQuadling@googlemail.com
In-Reply-To: <4CF625C2.1080606@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> <AANLkTi=okFXPw6=0p0mPK5LCAzh_-65uZpD13-C6rfJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CF625C2.1080606@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 12:16:52 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTik0=90vhPOHCW+kuqwrJiYF3xACphB5PL+G4uvw@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
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: C-sharp style property get/set syntax for PHP
From: rquadling@gmail.com (Richard Quadling)

On 1 December 2010 10:38, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
> So we have one set of properties where get and isset use different methods
> and another set of properties where get and isset use same method but with
> parameter. I think it's not the best way to go. It's better to ignore isset
> altogether than this.

No. The prototype of all setters would be the same. As would the
prototype of all getters.

The prototype would be ...

[public|protected|private] property $property {
  [public|protected|private] mixed|bool get([bool $isset = false]) {
// mixed result for get, bool result for isset
 },
  [public|protected|private] mixed|void set(mixed $value [, bool
$unset = false]) { // mixed result for set, void result for unset
 },
};


From a user's perspective ...

echo isset($instance->property) ? 'isset to ' . $instance->property :
'not isset';

This would result in 2 calls ...

property->get(true) // Let the getter that an attempt is being made to
see if the property has been set.
and
property->get(false) // Let the getter know that the getter is
expected to return the properties value.

Similarly for  the setter.

$instance->property = 'foo';
unset($instance->property);

would result in 2 calls ...

property->set('foo', false) // Let the setter know that it should be
setting the value of the property to 'foo'.
and
property->set(null, true) // Let the setter know that an attempt to
unset the property has taken place.



Maybe the proposal should be changed to ...


[public|protected|private] property $property {
  [public|protected|private] mixed get() {
 },
  [public|protected|private] mixed set(mixed $value) {
 },
  [public|protected|private] bool isset() {
 },
  [public|protected|private] void unset() {
 },
};

(NOTE: Add in abstract and final as appropriate).




-- 
Richard Quadling
Twitter : EE : Zend
@RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY