Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60222 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 40842 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2012 02:10:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Apr 2012 02:10:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cpriest@zerocue.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cpriest@zerocue.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zerocue.com designates 74.115.204.40 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cpriest@zerocue.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.115.204.40 relay-hub204.domainlocalhost.com Received: from [74.115.204.40] ([74.115.204.40:57923] helo=relay-hub204.domainlocalhost.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id DA/B5-18164-CA5C09F4 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:10:53 -0400 Received: from MBX202.domain.local ([169.254.19.147]) by HUB204.domain.local ([192.168.69.4]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:10:49 -0400 To: "internals@lists.php.net" Thread-Topic: RFC: Property get/set syntax Thread-Index: Ac0emlm8hG3KEkomTJKog+EXX0pdIA== Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 02:10:48 +0000 Message-ID: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485546B0737@MBX202.domain.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.64.22] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485546B0737MBX202domainloc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RFC: Property get/set syntax From: cpriest@zerocue.com (Clint M Priest) --_000_9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485546B0737MBX202domainloc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The only "open comments" I have on this project is the "read-only" and "wri= te-only" keywords. Are the dashes acceptable or undesirable? write-only was not in the original RFC but made sense to have the alternate= to read-only, any objections? If there is no other discussion for this, I'd like to move this to the voti= ng phase, any objects? https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-as-implemented -Clint --_000_9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485546B0737MBX202domainloc_--