Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63570 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 76856 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2012 19:09:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Oct 2012 19:09:58 -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 213.123.26.186 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 213.123.26.186 c2beaomr08.btconnect.com Received: from [213.123.26.186] ([213.123.26.186:56968] helo=mail.btconnect.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 53/45-22055-407F2805 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:09:57 -0400 Received: from host81-138-11-136.in-addr.btopenworld.com (EHLO _10.0.0.5_) ([81.138.11.136]) by c2beaomr08.btconnect.com with ESMTP id JJS94375; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:09:53 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <5082F701.7090602@lsces.co.uk> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:09:53 +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: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE4856140BA80@MBX202.domain.local> In-Reply-To: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE4856140BA80@MBX202.domain.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.5082F701.003C, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=8/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.10.20.185138:17:8.129, 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, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __CT, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_MAILTO, __URI_NO_WWW, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, BODY_ENDS_IN_URL, SUPERLONG_LINE, BODY_SIZE_1100_1199, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_00_01, HTML_00_10, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr08.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020A.5082F701.00E1: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] Accessors : read-only / write-only keywords From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) Clint Priest wrote: > Hey Rasmus, please try and keep these replies in the appropriate thread... And bottom post please ... > I am in favor of eliminating the read-only/write-only keywords and implementing no "special code" to make what was read-only/write-only language enforced. I think the alternatives with final are just fine and good enough and will let userland programming enforce it if they so desire. But the question still remains. Isn't a read only variable simply a 'const'? Why do we need anything more than that? It explains exactly why it has been defined without any ambiguity and works everywhere. write-only is a more 'specialist' concept as you need information back to confirm that it has been set, or if there was an error. Simply writing a value blind makes no sense? -- 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