Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63326
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zerocue.com designates 74.115.204.41 as permitted sender)
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
CC: Jazzer Dane <tbprogrammer@gmail.com>, Leigh <leight@gmail.com>,
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FCter_=28johannes=40schlueters=2Ede=29?=
	<johannes@schlueters.de>, "Rasmus Schultz (rasmus@mindplay.dk)"
	<rasmus@mindplay.dk>, "Etienne Kneuss (colder@php.net)" <colder@php.net>,
	"Nikita Popov (nikita.ppv@googlemail.com)" <nikita.ppv@googlemail.com>,
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Propety Accessors v1.1
Thread-Index: Ac2lRqaw0wLAVcGGQAyyWuaNO91x4QBHSfMAABNVRgAAB5uHkAAPDrAAAAc75gA=
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:57:58 +0000
Message-ID: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B4BE3@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>
 <CAF+90c_zzddpCET94HQfYZG4jQ0kmKvkMW7qCSq=xmP0xrsjbg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c_zzddpCET94HQfYZG4jQ0kmKvkMW7qCSq=xmP0xrsjbg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Propety Accessors v1.1
From: cpriest@zerocue.com (Clint Priest)

> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote=
:
> > I'm not even sure that automatic backing fields are even desired, I
> > never felt the need to have them in C# and the only reason they were
> > included is because they were a part of Dennis's original proposal.
> > Eliminating them would eliminate this as an issue.
>=20
> I just did a bit of research regarding this topic and I have found the fo=
llowing reasons why automatic properties exist in C#:
> 1. Changing a field to a property breaks the binary interface, so all cod=
e using the library has to be recompiled. If you are using an
> automatic property you can safely add additional behavior for it later.
> 2. Properties support data binding, whereas fields do not.
> 3. There are attributes that work for properties, but don't work for fiel=
ds.
> 4. Reflection for fields and properties works differently, so changing a =
field to a property is a BC break.
>=20
> I guess that #1 is the most important one (you don't want to break the
> interface) and it obviously does not apply to PHP. Points #2 and #3 also =
don't apply as PHP has neither data binding not attributes. #4
> also doesn't seem to apply because ReflectionPropertyAccessor defines all=
 the methods that ReflectionProperty defines, so
> changing
> field->property should be okay there too.
>=20
> From that I would conclude that the automatic properties are really not n=
eeded in PHP. I think they will only cause confusion as to
> when one should use `public $name;` and when one should use `public $name=
 { get; set; };`.
>=20
> The only thing I'm not sure about is how read-only / write-only propertie=
s rely on automatic properties with your current
> implementation. If the automatic properties aren't needed there either, t=
hen I think they can be safely removed.

Nice, I would agree that we should eliminate the automatic get/set since th=
e reason they exist in C# is not an issue in PHP and it has only served to =
confuse everyone.

With the read-only and write-only, they are separate from automatic getters=
/setters really.  If you define a read-only with {get;} it's the same as an=
y other getter.