Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56805
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 74.125.83.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: sebastian.krebs.berlin@googlemail.com
In-Reply-To: <CADqTB_i3q6Kmd3LNnd5srkO1-4P6Ak9UtAGekVPhVYP2sfZFfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADqTB_jQoGwqLbSMRUJR97XKSQu+KB3awvudjVGmoDB1gZLgsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE4853994C39F@MBX202.domain.local>
	<b4a2362c6c5ffd4efbca8f8e907054c3@mohiva.com>
	<CADqTB_i3q6Kmd3LNnd5srkO1-4P6Ak9UtAGekVPhVYP2sfZFfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:15:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CALtuQzB6JLbuASnyCexfhS=MObJLsAdCj0Ba6cqzyavmyL=Akg@mail.gmail.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364c7acb379fe504b36d129a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Patch: getters/setters syntax Implementation
From: krebs.seb@googlemail.com (Sebastian Krebs)

--0016364c7acb379fe504b36d129a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi

2011/12/6 Rasmus Schultz <rasmus@mindplay.dk>

> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Christian Kaps <christian.kaps@mohiva.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I also find this syntax confusing and I think it has a huge WTF factor.
> >
> > Some thoughts about the syntax:
> > - At the first glance, it isn't clear which visibility the getter or
> > setter has
> > - The extra indentation level makes the code more unreadable
> >
> > class Foo {
> >
> >    /**
> >     *
> >     */
> >    private $_bar;
> >
> >    /**
> >     *
> >     */
> >    public $bar{
> >
> >        /**
> >         *
> >         */
> >        set {
> >            if ($bar) {
> >                $this->_bar = $bar * 12;
> >            } else {
> >                $this->_bar = 0
> >            }
> >        }
> >
> >        /**
> >         *
> >         */
> >        private set {
> >            if ($this->_bar === null) {
> >                return 0;
> >            }
> >
> >            return $this->_bar;
> >        }
> >    }
> >
> >    /**
> >     *
> >     */
> >    public function baz() {
> >
> >    }
> > }
> >
> > - What about type hints?
> >
> > I prefer a more AS3 like getter and setter syntax.
> > http://help.adobe.com/en_US/**ActionScript/3.0_**ProgrammingAS3/**
> > WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9**b90204-7f30.html#**
> > WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9**b90204-7fcb<
> http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ActionScript/3.0_ProgrammingAS3/WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9b90204-7f30.html#WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9b90204-7fcb
> >
> >
> > Have you read my previous mail http://news.php.net/php.**internals/56762
> <http://news.php.net/php.internals/56762>
> > .
> > I think this syntax fits more to PHP because its similar to the already
> > existing(magic) getter and setter syntax.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Christian
> >
>
> I agree with all of those points - the extra indentation looks messy, and
> yes, type hints are important. It does fit better with PHP in general.
>
> It would be nice to also have support for automatic backing fields in
> addition though - so something simple like this:
>
> class BlogPost
> {
>    private $_author;
>
>    public get author()
>    {
>        return $this->_author;
>    }
>
>    public set author(Person $value)
>    {
>        $this->_author = $value;
>    }
> }
>
> Could be written like this:
>
> class BlogPost
> {
>    public Person $author;
> }
>
> Effectively, this shorthand syntax just gives you type-safe properties -
> but it refactors nicely, since you can replace it with a full
> implementation of a backing field at any point.
>
> (on second thought, I don't like the idea I suggested before - adding a
> magical $value in accessors, similar to $this - it's confusing and it's
> going to look like an undeclared local variable...)
>

Because it seems everybody throws in their preferred syntax :X

class X {
  public $myProperty {
    /* public *inherited* */ set (AnotherClass $value) { // Value from
"outside"
      return $value; // Set to property
    }
    private get (AnotherClass $value) { // Value from property (Maybe with
typehint)
      return $value; // returns value to the caller
    }
  } /* = 'default value'; */;
}


* No _magic_ $value
* Type-Hints
* I think nearly no suprise, what happens here


In my eyes the goal should be to _not_ separate a property from its
accessor anymore, which disqualifies both of Rasmus Schultz suggestions. At
least this is _the_ reason, why I want to see this RFC to be implemented.

--0016364c7acb379fe504b36d129a--