Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63441 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 16656 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2012 09:43:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Oct 2012 09:43:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 207.97.245.203 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 207.97.245.203 smtp203.iad.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [207.97.245.203] ([207.97.245.203:38147] helo=smtp203.iad.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A6/D7-10021-95C2D705 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 05:43:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp40.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 81B0535028F; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 05:43:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp40.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 8B341350293; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 05:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <507D2C54.6030702@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:43:48 +0300 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jazzer Dane CC: Clint Priest , "internals@lists.php.net" References: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B53E4@MBX202.domain.local> <507D24E0.9070203@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-DEV [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > #5: From what I understand, an extending class can not override an > accessor with a non-accessor. This should be in the RFC then - along with what exactly happens. Note that this will represent a sort of BC break in terms that you could have two properties $a before, but if you change implementation of $a in base class from plain old property to accessor property, the child class would break. Which is not good, since compatible changes in parent class should not break child classes - and which will also impede adoption of this feature, since you can not guarantee no child class does it. > #11: If you set an accessor's get or set to /final private/, you are not > able to extend and it are only able to invoke it from the current class. > If you don't invoke it, then it is virtually read or write only. I get this, but what do you write as a method body if you want to just disallow it? Do you write just {}? Then it's not good for get() since get() is supposed to return a value, and also not good for set() since base class still can call private methods, and we want set() to be not available for everybody. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227