Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63432
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPaKmRkxYDWfYcHwv64XTpnOsQJPsm+Cbx34R1J+VecNRUFbnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B6466@MBX202.domain.local>
 <CACQesk5MLCqhdKr9j30WmL6ySTeMpVVEs9q2UfOjYbA+4bp_Yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B655A@MBX202.domain.local> <CAPaKmRkxYDWfYcHwv64XTpnOsQJPsm+Cbx34R1J+VecNRUFbnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:54:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CACxA8bkeZJrDZ4XoKkOx9SHsHBfAgQH_gB00Opa-q1AfH0d=fA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amaury Bouchard <amaury@amaury.net>
Cc: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>, Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb2066e8d536c04cc2876b0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-DEV [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 : Interfaces
From: tbprogrammer@gmail.com (Jazzer Dane)

--e89a8fb2066e8d536c04cc2876b0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I prefer the current syntax to your proposal because:

1) It is not at all obvious which side is which. Example:
    *protected:private
*    Is protected* *for get? Or set? The average PHP developer will have no
idea. In fact, they likely won't know that they even correlate to get and
set.

2) There is no such syntax already in PHP.  (And on a more personal note, I
don't think I've ever seen that syntax in any other language that I've
worked in before. Which means it's even *more-so* out of people's comfort
zones.)

The current read/write syntax works, and none of the discussion I've read
thus far would sway me towards any other option.

That being said, I wouldn't contest to hearing - in more detail - your
reasoning behind why we should use it instead of the current syntax.

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Amaury Bouchard <amaury@amaury.net> wrote:

> 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.
>

--e89a8fb2066e8d536c04cc2876b0--