Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63320
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zerocue.com designates 74.115.204.40 as permitted sender)
To: Leigh <leight@gmail.com>, Bernhard Schussek <bschussek@gmail.com>
CC: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Propety Accessors v1.1
Thread-Index: Ac2lRqaw0wLAVcGGQAyyWuaNO91x4QBHSfMAABNVRgAAB5uHkAADVLMAAAOZVoAAAy9RgA==
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:02:30 +0000
Message-ID: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B4AE2@MBX202.domain.local>
References: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B3B48@MBX202.domain.local>
	<CAPwsocHLimh+b=tdnEUethFX84esA8w0STup-hf-a963tXinMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACxA8bn=s6S7jc9rCAUd-40fgscxkJKKCRt77CWpCsSbgRzdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B496D@MBX202.domain.local>
	<CAHjTTqM_5kE43aRHP=6Kcu=2zqNGhwReJgfpiMjXECUdZJboJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPwsocEiOAmgc6XNj8yRXEMF1vhj25bipTgxq_XVrU2AEabtxw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPwsocEiOAmgc6XNj8yRXEMF1vhj25bipTgxq_XVrU2AEabtxw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Propety Accessors v1.1
From: cpriest@zerocue.com (Clint Priest)

> > Second, I'd like to throw in the idea of array accessors. I mentioned
> > this before, but did not get any response.
> >
> > public $Addresses {
> >     offsetSet($offset, $value) { ... }
> >     offsetGet() { ... }
> >     offsetUnset($offset) { ... }
> >     offsetExists($offset) { ... }
> > }
>=20
> Definitely on the "nice to have" list.

While I agree it would be a "nice to have" it would also be un-necessary.  =
There are already ways to do precisely what is desired here by way of Array=
Access.

class Addresses implements ArrayAccess {
	offsetSet($offset, $value) { ... }
	offsetGet() { ... }
	offsetUnset($offset) { ... }
	offsetExists($offset) { ... }
}


// In base class where the proposed additional accessor types were suggeste=
d
public $Addresses =3D new Addresses();

Or if you felt like using an accessor to control access to the Addresses ob=
ject, you could implement that as well, but an accessor wouldn't even be ne=
cessary.

This would provide for cleaner object-oriented principles, the logic for de=
aling with acceptance of a new address stays within a class designed to hol=
d and control access to the collection of addresses.