Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63377
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
Sender: amaury.bouchard@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAHjTTqPygHJm4uPEh2OxvcuiHJsWsKVnERDK+yKsZkcGOM=atw@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B526F@MBX202.domain.local>
	<CAPaKmR=hNUegsH1xkqNv=rRCTq4jZ+dcvk3L=DPJ7pkrTP0TNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B53B2@MBX202.domain.local>
	<CAPaKmR=fk5vrxU5n_E_Oc3Pt4q2w1f8v+U=ARLiWR1GD+N7g4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHjTTqPygHJm4uPEh2OxvcuiHJsWsKVnERDK+yKsZkcGOM=atw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:40:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPaKmRmDJGNrREqYXok6WkSa4cUE0dbdmVkF80WF7AYJNn6UQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernhard Schussek <bschussek@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04462c460d7ade04cbdcd340
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Propety Accessors v1.1
From: amaury@amaury.net (Amaury Bouchard)

--f46d04462c460d7ade04cbdcd340
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Le 12 oct. 2012 10:37, "Bernhard Schussek" <bschussek@gmail.com> a =E9crit =
:
> > As I said, both syntaxes can work together. For example:
> >   public:protected $a {
> >     get() { return ($this->_prefix . $this->_a); }
> >     set($val) { $this->_a =3D substr($val, 1); }
> >   }
>
> A shortcoming of this syntax is that it does not offer a solution for
> the isset() and usset() accessors. Different visibility syntaxes for
> get/set and isset/unset would be unlogical and confusing.

Yes, you're right. But I never ever felt the need to define specific
visibility for __isset. On the other hand, I'm using getters and setters
everyday to manage the visibility of my object's attributes. (more about
isset and unset at the end of this email)

I'm trying to solve the main situation, not the special case.

> Also, public:protected implies an order which does not have to be kept
> in the block AFAIK. What is public and what is protected?

Read it aloud.

  public $a { protected set; }

=AB$a is publicly readable, and protected against writing.=BB

Exactly the same:

  public:protected $a;

=ABpublic read, protected write $a=BB

Seems easy to understand.

> public:protected $a { // ???
>     protected isset() { ... }
>     private unset() { ... }
>     get() { ... }
>     set($value) { ... }
> }

I consider that isset() is covered by the attribute's reading visibility,
and unset() is covered by writing visibility. If it's not obvious for you
as it is for me, can you give me some code examples?

--f46d04462c460d7ade04cbdcd340--