Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63596 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 88879 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2012 19:02:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Oct 2012 19:02:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=amaury.bouchard@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=amaury.bouchard@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.42 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: amaury.bouchard@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.42 mail-yh0-f42.google.com Received: from [209.85.213.42] ([209.85.213.42:33436] helo=mail-yh0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id EA/66-22055-BC644805 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:02:35 -0400 Received: by mail-yh0-f42.google.com with SMTP id o21so385890yho.29 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:02:32 -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=1e39DpayaetfWT4dgO1lPTQkBrl7NGCCEZlXa18e7V8=; b=GwDJq0Aqubz8+wg/mtEhl0432/nbyIZN6E25PnLSxB8gbU320vufYblEiFCMp8Z2DA 77NdsMPOQKk75zjOtaF0fig1Pw9jfq1zCfrm2DJovpa0Q0pqwt8xG1kppSnTeEaX89xx cdgiqjSuOl9Zf0K8vGNGin+Y5D1teNTuMwa+bEw7PxRH+LEfYY+3BPOJmgDdG6VTVI5p Ym9ihpTLPKlDI/AuGtxgdB2Jo8Ev9+QA4NZhHe7yF1O9ecOhk2+wplDibxtyVeWLOIKa kiITg2kpsz09foLdxzm31RFhUJgn4J1+swEHsC9MAAInur3qx7+4sIk2Sr/0ZZ1qMBJS JvMg== Received: by 10.236.141.207 with SMTP id g55mr6564438yhj.71.1350846152435; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:02:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: amaury.bouchard@gmail.com Received: by 10.147.152.21 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:02:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE4856140CF5D@MBX202.domain.local> References: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612C2595@MBX214.domain.local> <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE4856140CF5D@MBX202.domain.local> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:02:12 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Xa_gG5CgxhkeL1hrykGcGMhkPvU Message-ID: To: Clint Priest Cc: Levi Morrison , Nikita Popov , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303a36870fe67604cc96612b Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Accessors : read-only / write-only keywords From: amaury@amaury.net (Amaury Bouchard) --20cf303a36870fe67604cc96612b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I don't disagree (sure, I campaigned to remove the "read-only" keyword). But "not writable" is still different from "private writing". Should we loose any of these meanings? 2012/10/21 Clint Priest > I think that seems to be the consensus at this point, anyone disagree? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Levi Morrison [mailto:morrison.levi@gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:26 AM > > To: Amaury Bouchard > > Cc: Nikita Popov; Clint Priest; internals@lists.php.net > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Accessors : read-only / write-only keywords > > > > > If for some reason you need to enforce that nobody inherits it and > > > sets the property, then declaring a setter and issuing an error or > > > exception would suffice. > > > > I meant to say declaring a `private or final setter`. Noticed that > after I sent it. > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > --20cf303a36870fe67604cc96612b--