Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50817
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain basnetworks.net from 66.33.216.122 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=NcKuygtFXcj170rZP1Si2jOZZtk02DMs+f/cgiJiGebMH
	Mdxm0slJAKjn/ZOFqHUxJA+e+yPaJONxX1/OT8HiZWcmmCtTIWdLLuC/tlM1Ff+z
	95DqWiC+v3Ev27HCXsqbxny6pbTQ++9HJOiGN/Dkr5ij4Fg29/Z/G7LralBIls=
Message-ID: <8b46dd8e3e991cfe87550a9c55d9ecd8.squirrel@webmail.basnetworks.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinEne8Rq-Ew+=GsC_DF0x8D0FP8XmjRB_txpQXE@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>
    <AANLkTinEne8Rq-Ew+=GsC_DF0x8D0FP8XmjRB_txpQXE@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 08:51:00 -0500
To: "Eloy Bote Falcon" <eloybote@gmail.com>
Cc: rquadling@googlemail.com,
	"Stas Malyshev" <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>,
	"president@basnetworks.net" <president@basnetworks.net>,
	"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

> 2010/12/1 Richard Quadling <rquadling@gmail.com>
>
>> On 1 December 2010 09:22, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote=
:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> >> of two methods that just have a pretty syntax.  Methods cannot be
>> unset,
>> >> and nor should properties be allowed to.  isset() 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,
>> otherwise
>> > you have to explain why they don't work this way.
>> >
>> >> isset() in the way you suggest would just be confusing.  It would
>> allow
>> is
>> >> to say that a property does not exist, when in fact it does exist.
>> This
>> >> 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 ...

...

> Why change the expected behavior of isset? If a property has not been s=
et
> then isset must return false, and that includes $foo->name =3D NULL.


Thats simple then, when isset is invoked, call the get method, and if it
returns null then isset() returns false, but otherwise returns true.  Tha=
t
was likely just a small oversight on Richard's part.

- Dennis