Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63366
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 213.123.26.185 cause and error)
Message-ID: <5077D98A.2080808@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:49:14 +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: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B53E4@MBX202.domain.local> <5077D340.90905@lsces.co.uk> <CAEZPtU6OOwU5Z6VsnVVC_v-TzPPP2FfBLsL1LuOJX=Rfx9FudA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU6OOwU5Z6VsnVVC_v-TzPPP2FfBLsL1LuOJX=Rfx9FudA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-DEV [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2
From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine)

Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi Lester,
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
>> Clint Priest wrote:
>>>
>>> Alright, here is the updated RFC as per discussions for the last few days:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-as-implemented
>>>
>>> If you could read it over, make sure I have all of your concerns correctly
>>> addressed and we can leave this open for the two week waiting period while I
>>> make the final code changes.
>>
>>
>> Now I remember why I did not like this wholesale ...
>>
>> There is no easy way to identify that
>> $time->Hours = 12; is doing something other than a bog standard 'store 12 in
>> $Hours' while a simple $time->Hours(12); immediately makes it obvious that
>> there IS some processing involved. And period = $time->Hours(); flags that
>> the result is calculated from some other value in the class.
>>
>> So IS this new layer of magic mirrors really necessary at all? Is it adding
>> to the complexity at the expense of the inherent readability of the code
>> later on?
>>
>> I suppose the argument is that 'people expect it' but that is only because
>> they are not yet used to the better way of working that IS PHP ... just
>> because some people expect cryptic code should that be any reason to weigh
>> PHP down further with it?
>>
>
> Please keep the discussion sane without repeating the same arguments
> over and over again. This RFC is about adding a new cleaner
> getter/setter than the __get/__set we have now, which forces us to do
> some more useless work for basic needs. The complexity you are talking
> about already exist and you already mentioned this argument already,
> we got it.

Sorry , but if the complexity was any good, why does it need to be changed?
Simply scrap the whole lot and get back to a more sane solution. I'm sorry but 
this is just the whole problem with PHP 'development' ... people push half 
developed ideas in, and then it's used as the basis for moving things further 
forward, when a step back MAY be the best way forward! Has ANY of the new stuff 
that has been added to PHP recently ACTUALLY been fully finished? In many cases 
you are now discussion how to make them work better because what exists has 
problems that will be fixed later :( And we have to live with the consequences 
in the real world.

-- 
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