Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60276
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE48555BEC3C2@MBX202.domain.local>
References: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE48555BEC3C2@MBX202.domain.local>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:56:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nFGBn2fK-qZyPAEP72KR808i2AUOv4Z-US5Wc1G+Va=XA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Clint M Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Property get/set syntax (added isset/unset and references)
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Clint,

Very nice job overall!  Looking quite good.

>  Alternatively we could throw an error to a call on isset and/or unset ag=
ainst a property which didn't define an implementation.

I don't care for that concept much.  All it's doing is trading one set
of boilerplate for another.  I'd prefer the get() !=3D=3D null approach,
since there is a zval allocated for it, so the isset() part.

And I do like the unset overloading, which is right inline with __unset()..=
.

Additionally, is something like this possible?

class Foo {
    private $bar =3D 1;
    public $bar {
        get { return $this->bar; }
        set { $this->bar =3D (int) $value; }
    }
}

The reason that I ask, is that's kind of what's done with __get() and
__set() right now, the magic is called when it's out of scope.  So in
this case, we can have a public variable with the same name as the
private one, but with validations attached to the public exposure...

Just a thought...

Anthony

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Clint M Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote=
:
> I've updated the RFC to include details on adding isset/unset as well as =
references, detailed below:
>
> isset/unset:
>
> class TimePeriod {
> =A0 =A0private $Seconds =3D 3600;
>
> =A0 =A0public $Hours {
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0get { return $this->Seconds / 3600; }
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0set { $this->Seconds =3D $value; }
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0isset { return !is_null($this->Seconds); }
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0unset { $this->Seconds =3D NULL; }
> =A0 =A0}
> }
>
> References:
>
>
> class SampleClass {
>
> =A0 =A0private $_dataArray =3D array(1,2,5,3);
>
>
>
> =A0 =A0public $dataArray {
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0&get { return &$this->_dataArray; }
>
> =A0 =A0}
>
> }
>
>
>
> $o =3D new SampleClass();
>
> sort($o->dataArray);
>
> /* $o->dataArray =3D=3D array(1,2,3,5); */
>
> Comments?
>
> These would also include automatic implementations which call the respect=
ive functions on the backing field. =A0I could see only allowing isset/unse=
t automatic implementations if get/set were also specified as automatic imp=
lementations.
>
> Default implementations of isset/unset
>
> I'm also fielding comments/ideas on a way to always provide automatic imp=
lementations of isset/unset for any accessor that didn't define one automat=
ically. =A0One idea was for the isset (unspecified implementation) which wo=
uld return true if the getter provided any value which evaluated to true, s=
uch as this:
>
> class TimePeriod {
> =A0 =A0private $Seconds =3D 3600;
>
> =A0 =A0public $Hours {
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0get { return $this->Seconds / 3600; }
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0set { $this->Seconds =3D $value; }
> =A0 =A0}
> }
> /* Default Implementation Concept */
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0isset { return (int)$this->Hours; }
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0unset { $this->Hours =3D NULL; }
>
> Note that the automatic implementation of unset is not strictly the same =
as an unset() but without any sort of unset implementation a call to unset(=
) would do nothing. =A0Alternatively we could throw an error to a call on i=
sset and/or unset against a property which didn't define an implementation.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Clint