Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63416
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACQesk4q-YLPkn=ECHsNcTmoanzKVH8eN8iZ-LW-wULn7_rbHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B6466@MBX202.domain.local>
	<CACQesk5MLCqhdKr9j30WmL6ySTeMpVVEs9q2UfOjYbA+4bp_Yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B655A@MBX202.domain.local>
	<CACQesk4q-YLPkn=ECHsNcTmoanzKVH8eN8iZ-LW-wULn7_rbHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 08:19:17 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NoG7J+SCzgJeiU4rzcAr5y2FNmb=KX6PFch+M4ZD9fuOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net>
Cc: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-DEV [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 : Interfaces
From: morrison.levi@gmail.com (Levi Morrison)

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote=
:
>> I would bet, that at present, what you've put down is not allowed becaus=
e I purposely leveraged functions in this regard because all of the restric=
tions put in place against functions would apply to accessors (because they=
 are functions).  I would have to test it to be certain though.
>>
>> Because of Nikita's desire to not have underlying __getXX() functions ex=
posed in any way this may have to change.  I had spent several hours actual=
ly divorcing the created function from the Functions HashTable and later re=
alized I could simply enforce their non-existence at call time, this has tu=
rned somewhat problematic for static accessors though.
>>
>> Also, your "should be valid" statement implies that you feel properties =
and accessors are the same and they are not, internally.  When a class atte=
mpts to implement an interface a "function check" is done and since there i=
s no __getXX() function defined it would fail to implementation check again=
st an interface.
>>
>> I cannot stress enough that properties !=3D accessors in any way except =
the syntax in which they are used ($o->xyz) or ($o->xyz =3D 1), that is the=
ir *only* similarity.
>
> I not saying accessors are properties. I'm saying that interfaces
> define usage contracts. And from the point of view of usage contacts:
>
> interface A {
>    public $a {get; set; }
> }
>
> is entirely fulfilled by the class:
>
> class B extends A {
>     public $a;
> }
>
> You can see a public property as an underlying private property with
> all usual public accessors defined.
>
> From the point of view of the user both should be interchangeable transpa=
rently.

I support this idea.  Dart used this method before they removed
interfaces from the language altogether and it seemed to work well. Is
it completely obvious? No, it's not. I honestly don't think it
matters, though, because people who will use this will use interfaces.
 As already mentioned, interfaces typically are not typically used in
PHP. The fact that it isn't 100% obvious is a non-issue in my opinon.