Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50776
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain basnetworks.net from 208.97.132.66 cause and error)
DomainKey-Status: good
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=basnetworks.net; h=message-id
	:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to:cc:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=
	basnetworks.net; b=D4Q9LfrbjtXq4HTRPPe0nffm9SIgWPxRGx2NXKcRDRoxd
	umk7y9TeD+MhRwWY3cV2t5c8szfb2e/1V0qKfClCpKd+8hFB7FQU90ISorxEqmDG
	7hwxeZhWJThhuX4nmcmtp4XW28Gb8xSfGR344TWpUeTM+UQLMoQBN/p9Rrj5vE=
Message-ID: <23d1e573d22236bad96d57ffff4e3001.squirrel@webmail.basnetworks.net>
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 08:22:05 -0500
To: "Stas Malyshev" <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: C-sharp style property get/set syntax for PHP
From: president@basnetworks.net

>> Its not a matter of consistency - Properties, as a cross-language
>> concept
>> are not meant to work that way.  You 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?

Its a defacto standard.  Of course there is nothing stopping PHP from
implementing properties that way, but by going against the standard set b=
y
the rest of the industry, it is very confusing for programmers coming fro=
m
other languages to learn PHP.  A good example is how "=3D=3D" works
differently in PHP than in other languages.  In PHP, "=3D=3D=3D" works li=
ke "=3D=3D"
does everywhere else.  "(string)'0' =3D=3D (int)0", for example is true i=
n
PHP, but false in most other languages.  I have had countless
conversations with PHP developers who claim the language is "broken",
because =3D=3D does not work like they expect it to, after which I have t=
o
explain =3D=3D=3D to them.  This is because PHP goes against the defacto
standard.  Maybe it would have been better if =3D=3D and =3D=3D=3D had th=
e opposite
meaning, as to not squash the standard?


>> of two methods that just have a pretty syntax.  Methods cannot be unse=
t,
>> and nor should properties be allowed to.  isset() should simply tell u=
s
>> whether a property with the specified name is part of the class or not=
.
>
> If you need methods, why not use methods?

Because properties are only meant to be a pretty syntax for a get/set
method.  Thats it!  I don't know of any other special behaviour in any
other language that lets you "hide" properties or anything else like that=
.


>> isset() in the way you suggest would just be confusing.  It would allo=
w
>> is
>> to say that a property does not exist, when in fact it does exist.  Th=
is
>> is not logical.
>
> Sorry, from your answer I don't understand - what happens when you call
> isset($foo->property) and unset($foo->property)?

You make a good point.  If we can't unset a property, than we lose
consistency with regular variables which I guess ruins the point of
properties.

- Dennis