Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63470 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 91181 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2012 15:24:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Oct 2012 15:24:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 213.123.20.132 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 213.123.20.132 c2bthomr14.btconnect.com Received: from [213.123.20.132] ([213.123.20.132:25031] helo=mail.btconnect.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id DB/85-62581-51C7D705 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:24:06 -0400 Received: from host81-138-11-136.in-addr.btopenworld.com (EHLO _10.0.0.5_) ([81.138.11.136]) by c2bthomr14.btconnect.com with ESMTP id JLH89315; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:24:02 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <507D7C0C.3000808@lsces.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:23:56 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120826 Firefox/15.0 SeaMonkey/2.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B3B48@MBX202.domain.local> <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B3B76@MBX202.domain.local> <507D285A.3010701@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: <507D285A.3010701@sugarcrm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.507D7C12.0019, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.10.16.144826:17:7.944, ip=81.138.11.136, rules=__MOZILLA_MSGID, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __HAS_FROM, __USER_AGENT, __MIME_VERSION, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __CT, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_MAILTO, __URI_NO_WWW, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, BODY_ENDS_IN_URL, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_00_01, HTML_00_10, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr14.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020D.507D7C12.009A:SCFSTAT14830815,ss=1,re=-4.000,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Propety Accessors v1.1 From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) Stas Malyshev wrote: >> >What remains on your TODO list for this functionality? >> >When are you planning to run an RFC vote on this? >> > >> >I think this would be a valuable addition to PHP 5.5. > I think we shouldn't rush with votes on this until all fine details > aren't hashed out. This is a*huge* feature - one of the biggest ones > recently, and has a lot of implications for various scenarios. Property > access is what virtually every script in existence does, and doing > changes there have implications that touch every corner of the engine. > > I think Clint is doing a great job with this RFC, but we need to > carefully work through all the corners and side cases and relationships > with all other features before we can declare it's ready for the prime > time. Exactly because it is such a big deal it needs to be refined and > polished. But a vote NOT to include it should still be one of the options! The more edge cases I see on this discussion, the more I am convinced that this is simply not right for PHP ... it's not needed and only adds unnecessary bloat. The more the functionality of PHP gets buried in 'magic code' that can't even be debugged properly or viewed the less useful PHP becomes. I'm sorry if people are spending a lot of time trying to make something work, but that is their choice, and should not be a reason to include something. I still don't see how this improves anything when all we need to be doing is managing the existing variables, arrays and objects stored in the object. __get and __set aren't needed either but that is another matter. Does anybody actually use them, or are they waiting for the 'better alternative'? Is there any real reason not simply to be using $obj->var ? It is the fastest way of doing it anyway ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk