Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63431
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: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B655A@MBX202.domain.local>
References: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B6466@MBX202.domain.local>
 <CACQesk5MLCqhdKr9j30WmL6ySTeMpVVEs9q2UfOjYbA+4bp_Yw@mail.gmail.com> <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B655A@MBX202.domain.local>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:39:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPaKmRkxYDWfYcHwv64XTpnOsQJPsm+Cbx34R1J+VecNRUFbnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>
Cc: Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net>, "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04462c465f906b04cc2842ed
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-DEV [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 : Interfaces
From: amaury@amaury.net (Amaury Bouchard)

--f46d04462c465f906b04cc2842ed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

2012/10/15 Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>

> Also, your "should be valid" statement implies that you feel properties
> and accessors are the same and they are not, internally.  When a class
> attempts to implement an interface a "function check" is done and since
> there is no __getXX() function defined it would fail to implementation
> check against an interface.
>
> I cannot stress enough that properties != accessors in any way except the
> syntax in which they are used ($o->xyz) or ($o->xyz = 1), that is their
> *only* similarity.


I disagree. That's why I said this is a matter of choice. A philosophical
choice.
I don't see properties and accessors like different things which are
accidentally written the same. Accessors are a layer upon properties. It's
a magical layer, trying to mimic accessors.
It's a bit like aspect-oriented programming: you can add layer but the core
is still the same (from a developper point of view, not from the PHP
interpreter point of view).


See another argument: My proposal for read/write accessibility definition.
When I suggested to allow this syntax: "public:private $abc;"
some people objected that it's the same than "public $abc { get; private
set; }"

So, if I understand what you said, for you it's deeply different and
comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges. I disagree. I still
think my syntax is better (and could be implemented with better
performance), but it's normal to compare them, because they (can) offer
pretty much the same functionnalities.

--f46d04462c465f906b04cc2842ed--