Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:61318 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26361 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2012 15:39:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Jul 2012 15:39:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=admacedo@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=admacedo@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.42 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: admacedo@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.42 mail-yw0-f42.google.com Received: from [209.85.213.42] ([209.85.213.42:42993] helo=mail-yw0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id AA/A3-09344-BA534005 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:39:23 -0400 Received: by yhoo21 with SMTP id o21so4661720yho.29 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:39:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=zYPWCfJR2abHk0d1qp0G496kIHn24qIvaBWVtE5n1S4=; b=rWas75xXfBumVy80DlF8dIqlRKuBejKjD7aYtHaDI8F28kQmFKi+5FKJzwBylD1QMl XxGS1FUOVUoQjTGGwtR+my3XB/3b0f4aQEnTPPohxplwQuIwa8pbE8hTGVC57UJSvbfY eDCFPcNnxogk0czWBL0+RDDmZJAcEl6Kpm65/wox5+hJGZVfggu5B0sHnsu13oIE23Ad LI3qn50umqbeTDDXVDCYbTwkWOdNV/jpGFn5rkFRAQIrS/2iIUD4SnGKfRb0XwyCFWAK Pn+G393bGwW60pG/KZpeUce9Yc5cePkI830Oi4gMU6WnxwaORFHPG3FrYIpXgS7sxlFK 0MeQ== Received: by 10.68.193.226 with SMTP id hr2mr27376306pbc.155.1342453159644; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:39:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.56.7 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:38:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:38:39 +0100 Message-ID: To: Amaury Bouchard Cc: Andrew Faulds , internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Proposal - Attributes read/write visibility From: admacedo@gmail.com (Daniel Macedo) On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Amaury Bouchard wrote: > My point is not to add two ways to do the same thing. > What I'm humbly suggesting to do is to keep the core idea of the existing > RFC (make things easier when you have to write getters/setters), and think > about another syntax for managing reading and writing visibilities. > The thing is that coming down to two options of a new A:B syntax or the RFC proposal, the RFC fits on the current syntax and allows for more flexibility such as expanding with other function calls, I think that would get the support+votes behind it. The only thing I'm not yet particulartly fond of in this RFC is the $value variable, but I guess there might not be another way around it, unless we go for a more complex syntax.