Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63452 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 34118 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2012 10:48:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Oct 2012 10:48:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 207.97.245.193 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 207.97.245.193 smtp193.iad.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [207.97.245.193] ([207.97.245.193:40650] helo=smtp193.iad.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C3/AB-10021-27B3D705 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:48:18 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp59.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4CF713F025C; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:48:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp59.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 58E2F3F0494; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <507D3B6D.1090308@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:48:13 +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> <507D3459.3020900@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! > Stas, the proposed "solution" thus far is to make the getter or setter > final and private and not have a body. This would naturally throw an > exception if it was accessed from anywhere but the class it was defined. > The class it was defined in has to remember that it is virtually a > read/write only accessor. What you mean by "not have a body" - is there special syntax for body-less methods introduced? Then it should be in the RFC. How it is implemented - what exactly is stored in the function table then? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227