Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50814
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain basnetworks.net from 208.97.132.145 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=KLkNe4ktO9gSKnnScRbopzW9yAwt5kUD8MZ6alJsptr0Z
	VPe87Je7yHNoyiL3azbfOKdchEGFUcXy0GeF0ML0lJUYGlBpRIJhPyrx6iOBe0z9
	1dCYMBxvZkVwn2kozDIPQiQHzx5SdaBCtyYUYXCLmEiME1wzRcsWKcQnwnw5zo=
Message-ID: <7ecd4694dde8948c7af7f46cf0f9f467.squirrel@webmail.basnetworks.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik0=90vhPOHCW+kuqwrJiYF3xACphB5PL+G4uvw@mail.gmail.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>
    <AANLkTik0=90vhPOHCW+kuqwrJiYF3xACphB5PL+G4uvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 09:02:36 -0500
To: RQuadling@googlemail.com
Cc: "Stas Malyshev" <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>,
 "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

>> 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 =3D false]) {
> // mixed result for get, bool result for isset
>  },
>   [public|protected|private] mixed|void set(mixed $value [, bool
> $unset =3D false]) { // mixed result for set, void result for unset
>  },
> };
>
>
> From a user's perspective ...
>
> echo isset($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.
>
> $instance->property =3D 'foo';
> unset($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).


This last syntax makes far more sense than adding parameters to the
get/set methods.  The problem however, is what does isset and unset
do/return if they are not defined?  What if I only want to define the
get/set and I do not define the isset/unset?  If they are required,
properties are far too complex to be useful.  But if they are optional, w=
e
are back to the same problem of what isset() and unset() are supposed to
do...

- Dennis