Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63446 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25047 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2012 10:18:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Oct 2012 10:18:08 -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] ([207.97.245.203:32906] helo=smtp203.iad.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 74/A9-10021-E543D705 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:18:07 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp40.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E26CF35025C; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:18:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp40.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id EF7B83502EA; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:18:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <507D3459.3020900@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:18:01 +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> <507D2C54.6030702@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-DEV [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > In regards to #11, yes, you'd just write {}. I imagine you could also This doesn't work for the same class (and for traits which put things in the context of the same class) - it would not behave as "no setter", it would behave as "there's a setter doing nothing". Is this the proposed solution? Exception is a possibility but then everybody would do it differently which reduces the value of standardizing it (the whole point of having accessors since otherwise we could just do __get and throw exceptions). > We went through multiple alternative options to read/write-only, and the > implementation you see in the 1.2 RFC is the most widely agreed upon > proposal. I don't doubt that there is room for improvement in this area, > but we haven't had any further proposals as of yet. Actually, I do not see anything explicitly said in the proposal that works for the cases outlined above. I wanted to just make sure if that means "no solution currently" (then should be on TODO list) or "we have a solution but it's not outlined in the RFC" (should be added then). -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227