Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63467 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 69171 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2012 13:47:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Oct 2012 13:47:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=amaury.bouchard@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=amaury.bouchard@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: amaury.bouchard@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.214.170 mail-ob0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.214.170] ([209.85.214.170:47491] helo=mail-ob0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 9B/11-62581-5556D705 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:47:02 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id ni5so6702602obc.29 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:46:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=pitvY7e76wJzWNHYhgHsUauHz+6R4EpmA24blWsojcE=; b=IEpndIljR3zCJZGkpWrflnEW2fqcEnEYlF/InT57a14HmJweQfpELT5O7/q8OYlDdU QQtqRSTqETqjnqb22Hk6v3knEO6sVYFhHDtxY5lmmU2FXnbUwZY9Gg3x5ZYFWSFO9ojg 8xEynkpL9EO/mFDIto/DR07ID3Rk41YiWHHMJJlDussRYoWUKNF/x5HgS5OQf+C6UzzY 37U+TqJBJ8ysh7GeeEmKsmbAiicVTuqbksD+tqaPukEqdBXz98KRNShSp9j3Spy5EIBV 2pgYByN2jxoic9zscnIfnWfijyJhtHQ4R7r3u/v4RuUO9gZmIcDKCpcgMNxo3GMmUVXR R3pQ== Received: by 10.182.156.99 with SMTP id wd3mr3817133obb.15.1350395218212; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:46:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: amaury.bouchard@gmail.com Received: by 10.182.24.169 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:46:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B6F1D@MBX202.domain.local> References: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B53E4@MBX202.domain.local> <507D24E0.9070203@sugarcrm.com> <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B6DC9@MBX202.domain.local> <507D5199.3090203@sugarcrm.com> <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B6F1D@MBX202.domain.local> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:46:37 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5z3xyjqup6Fq6GDav-JeBru0IvM Message-ID: To: Clint Priest Cc: Stas Malyshev , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444e86949b8e404cc2d63b9 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-DEV [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 From: amaury@amaury.net (Amaury Bouchard) --f46d0444e86949b8e404cc2d63b9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 2012/10/16 Clint Priest > In this regard, I have yet to see any proposal that is as clear or concise > as public read-only $abc. What is the big problem with adding read-only > and write-only keywords? Once they are in the language they could be > expanded to plain properties. public:const $abc; (in cyberspace, no one can hear me scream) No need for another keyword when there is one doing the job. IMHO, write-only doesn't make any sense. If you define something "like an attribute" to be only writeable, in fact you are defining a method. But you use it like that: $obj->attr = 3; instead of using it like that: $obj->meth(3); What's the point? More, read-only and write-only are very poor-meaning keywords. We need full PPP visibility (and yes, I know the RFC allows asymetric visibility, but it implies to create accessors and therefore some code). --f46d0444e86949b8e404cc2d63b9--