Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63334
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B4EFE@MBX202.domain.local>
References: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B3B48@MBX202.domain.local>
 <5073328D.5000002@gmail.com> <50735165.8010703@aaronholmes.net>
 <CAEPJdu=pRSDRD68t3o7XVbWRo-FvA07Wr+bzM_bwOXkwfiMxng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACxA8bkF0EHDs3As=kMcg-BahRfBK6A5i7B9TdRc_SweCsv23A@mail.gmail.com>
 <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B4353@MBX202.domain.local>
 <CACxA8b=wbHN_mRomH25Jr+i9BeTzj=VTGfPe_T8igjzCsMNn_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <760ab4f994a78a846cf86aafda71e0e2@mohiva.com> <CALtuQzAH-=ePssPi-yUcXghpUhO6jOH4oDhDtPEFVj9bRf1VLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B4EFE@MBX202.domain.local>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:18:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CACxA8bnqc4L56AxSVHQJgaT3UFOCSc93NdmE_W6CdERa+rK5Gw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f5024ee1437e204cbbf3100
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Propety Accessors v1.1
From: tbprogrammer@gmail.com (Jazzer Dane)

--e89a8f5024ee1437e204cbbf3100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

This all sounds about right.

In regards to #4 - read-only/write-only:
I think that, from a "pretty syntax" point of view, private final set() {}
and private final get() {} are definitely our best bets. But... from a
logical point of view, I prefer read-only/write-only.

private final get() {} is technically saying it will always return null.
private final set() {} is technically saying that setting doesn't do
anything - but it still works.

But I don't see any sane scenario where someone would want to do the above.
Therefore, it may just be best to use them in place of the currently
proposed read-only/write-only.

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote:

> Okay, I would like this to be the last time there are revisions to this
> RFC.
>
> To sum up the last few days of conversations, I have these down as points
> of contention:
>
> 1.  Accessor functions should not be present on the object and callable
> directly, for example, $o->__getHours() should not be allowed.
> 2.  Preferred syntax for accessors should be "public set($value) { ... }"
> with no "magic" $value (with possible type hinting)
> 3.  Automatically implemented get; set; with auto-backing field should be
> eliminated as this is not necessary for PHP and is confusing most everyone.
> 4.  read-only / write-only keywords, keep them or get rid of them?  There
> is no directly suitable replacement but I believe a private final set() { }
> will take care of it, even though it much more verbose.
> 5.  Error handling for thrown exceptions should be made more appropriate
> for accessors
> 6.  The "truth" of reflection.  Should it reveal details internal to how
> PHP works on the inside or should it reflect the way PHP presents it as
> options?
>
> Did I miss anything?
>
>
> I will come up with some way for people to vote on the issues at hand and
> we can cast our votes and be done with it, then I will finish the project
> and get it out the door.
>
> -Clint
>

--e89a8f5024ee1437e204cbbf3100--