Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63642
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zerocue.com designates 67.200.53.250 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <508A6918.6030306@zerocue.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 05:42:32 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------050003010706050203050900"
Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 : Interfaces
From: cpriest@zerocue.com (Clint Priest)

--------------050003010706050203050900
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm opening up several new threads to get discussion going on the 
remaining "being debated" categories referenced in this 1.1 -> 1.2 
change spec:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-as-implemented/change-requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
v1.1 fully allows accessors to be defined in interfaces and requires 
that those accessors be defined in implementing classes. Some people 
have suggested that a property defined by the class should also satisfy 
the requirement.

*Arguments For*

  *  From the outside observer of an interface, a class which defines a
    property has satisfied the requirement, because an interface only
    defines what must be allowed, not what cannot be done.


*Arguments Against*

  * Additional overhead on interface checking, would only be allowed for
    a non-asymmetrical accessor
  * Would give userland developers the ability to write poor code as
    properties are non-observable (object would not know its property
    was changed)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts?

-- 
-Clint


--------------050003010706050203050900--