Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63341
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 213.123.26.184 cause and error)
Message-ID: <50766C86.8010200@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 07:51:50 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120826 Firefox/15.0 SeaMonkey/2.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
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> <CAFMT4NoDhvaHOTT28ENkVZh0Pp=8C4Fb+4==D-56ajoN7CMAyg@mail.gmail.com> <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B4F46@MBX202.domain.local>
In-Reply-To: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B4F46@MBX202.domain.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Propety Accessors v1.1
From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine)

Clint Priest wrote:
> I certainly would not want to push through the door a low quality solution, I would never do that, but I have been working on this project myself for a year and each time I come back, having addressed the concerns of the last batch of opinions there are a whole new set of concerns.  It is indeed part of the problem with a project such as this, there is no "head" to make a decision, only numerous opinions, none of which come to a consensus.
>
> Perhaps it is an aspect of the medium of using email for this purpose but it really goes in every direction at once very quickly and nothing is really ever "decided," it's quite frustrating.
>
> In the end, I just want everyone to come to a consensus on what this should be and I will go and finish it and be done with it.  The original property get/set RFC has been around for over 3 years and PHP is one of the few modern languages that does not have such a feature.

Do all RFC's need to become 'law' ?
While on one had I can see the rational behind not SIMPLY using the object 
directly, one of the nicest things in PHP has been the short cut to directly 
access and update things. Alright it may not be politically correct in some 
peoples mind, but isn't it time to think 'Why was PHP4 so popular?' ... because 
it was simple and nothing has changed to stop it doing a job. PHP5 seems to get 
more and more complex every day ...

Do we need 'reflection' at all?
Do extra hidden things like $o->__getHours() have any place?
Complexity like "public set($value) { ... }" just seem obscene?

I could make a case for 'public readonly setting;' where the public view can't 
write to 'setting' that just seems a logical progression, but instead of 
'strict' mode, how about 'simple' mode and disable anything that is not needed 
to simply write code ...

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk