Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:61321
Return-Path: <admacedo@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 32113 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2012 15:58:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 16 Jul 2012 15:58:06 -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 209.85.160.42 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: admacedo@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.160.42 mail-pb0-f42.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.160.42] ([209.85.160.42:64720] helo=mail-pb0-f42.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id F3/D4-09344-D0A34005 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:58:06 -0400
Received: by pbbrp12 with SMTP id rp12so11286698pbb.29
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:58:03 -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=feNLrYXiqfet4uv6t41PVgfOz43J7dPiNuaYIgLxO84=;
        b=HFACDVMujC3Sn+EEIUZgYjQoboSElTztRpBJ0OSMZ/d9WO8zFhjVTuidPm/uAB42mE
         kiuhHmXPrV/qVMIn2HQvVCvno4n/YPkpy/EqjhNFvY1feduNyyYBvJLaqzMzjcd2W4a3
         2K9xJrIJRYroNuC6gEP0Cmu3jICArfRfuw1Q8eXsq90o1tU04V3xTZmkT43wt79BWt/t
         XmrAUv8HPhLHEi9SDHWIil/XqIuHucqECn55OLAAGaCNaDsopo18IYtjs/2Xn6iYSyE8
         1zUJmaTvIJQnNFqEAl7xHRkVgv9XzZl1luHTBop4nHaKPQgT7DyUMUj2P8xdNPMJ5UTZ
         WTLw==
Received: by 10.68.138.169 with SMTP id qr9mr27568251pbb.27.1342454283094;
 Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.56.7 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPaKmRmtTwTFETW=Urdr3ooB0jmWshY1PdzVodOsZhCiREaJ_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPaKmRmn+L081722PHdzJFEO4wRyGTixacLZ38FTyBr-s8Up3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c-yQe4Hjh=1KUAhN0XFkSp1OXevcvuHXiBJ2Y0isU=QeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPaKmR=rveMOaGXWjx=9s2-fU86BRe90yScwbd60hJN+-g6c3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c8TiLDMGAFHopx4hQfOgE1S4r9V0VCrRQ46HM=o5DnT8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAPaKmRmtTwTFETW=Urdr3ooB0jmWshY1PdzVodOsZhCiREaJ_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:57:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+yzxZhqoXW77K2jd_by1c8iooW3GqkiB=pLFdvSrFuKZiXwQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amaury Bouchard <amaury@amaury.net>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 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)

That is already accounted for, both the visibility (what's inside
limits what's before the variable) as well as changing the
write-only/read-only options. If you read the RFC, when extending a
class and adding "set" method to a member that was read-only, you
overload the read-only setting...

Hence on the example you gave I expect the set method to be available
privately, and the visibility to be decreased from public to
protected.

Might not make a lot of sense to have it all together (even on legacy
code - you do review before committing, right? :), but it's accounted
for when extending classes.