Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63556
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <508271A2.40200@sugarcrm.com>
References: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612C2595@MBX214.domain.local> <508271A2.40200@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 02:49:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CACxA8bnzrf78n9BCcsK8dpSDMSCQD3VdUTas+8+Bgj8cdQYzhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54a3548a284e304cc7a8934
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Accessors : read-only / write-only keywords
From: tbprogrammer@gmail.com (Jazzer Dane)

--bcaec54a3548a284e304cc7a8934
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I'll agree with you in regards to your analysis of Clint's proposed syntax.

In terms of your questioning the idea around "read-only", this is how I
think about it:
Class A created  property accessor $z that you can not set. Class B can
extend me just fine, but they can not alter that basic rule that I laid out
for my and all my children's property accessor $z: You can not set it.

This makes sense to me, and I feel like it is control that the developer
should have.

If we were to translate *final set NULL;* (or whatever implementation we
choose to use) to a more manual implementation, it may look something like
this:

public $property {
>   final get() { ... }
>   final set($value) { throw new Exception("You can't set $property. It is
> read only."); }
> }
>

On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>wrote:

> Hi!
>
> >         get() { return $this->Hours; }
> >         final set NULL;
>
> It looks like some unobvious piece of magic - what exactly "set NULL"
> means? There's no obvious parsing of this thing for somebody that
> doesn't already know what the magic means. I'd rather have people
> implement a method throwing exception manually than have this. It's
> unclear what is relationship between "set" (is it a variable? a
> constant? a method?) and "NULL" (what NULL here means? is it assignment
> of NULL to set? is it declaration of NULL with type "set"?) and it does
> not parse naturally with almost any background.
>
> Thinking about it for a while, the whole idea of "this class can never
> have this method implemented" looks a bit strange to me - I don't think
> I've ever encountered such concept in OOP. You can say "I implement it
> this way and you can't override it" but NULL does not suggest any
> natural implementation.
>
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
> (408)454-6900 ext. 227
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--bcaec54a3548a284e304cc7a8934--