Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63655
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <508A9AC9.50200@sugarcrm.com>
References: <508A67E6.2000405@zerocue.com>
	<508A9AC9.50200@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:18:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c-VmscV0q=RAk7FE6+RLhjY8t9CRGY7QqpjB+3=b2XJTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 : Internal Accessor
 Method Visibility / Callability
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Some people are in favor of the internal functions being generated by an
>> accessor declaration should be invisible and non-callable directly.
>> Others are in favor of leaving them visible and callable.
>
> I think these types are not right. It has nothing to do with
> internals/userland, it has to do with wanting more magic that work is a
> complex way while allowing user no knowledge and control over what's
> going on, or reduced number of simple concepts that interact in a
> variety of ways.
I think you are presenting the situation inaccurately. This has
nothing to do with complex magic and also does not intend to limit the
users control. Actually, both approaches are exactly the same, the
only difference is whether we additionally put the accessor function
into the method table or whether we do not.

I still fail to see where you see complexity come into the picture.
You have mentioned inheritance checking, but from what I see the
functions doing the inheritance check take generic zend_function*s, so
they wouldn't have a problem dealing with code not in the method
table. The same applies to pretty much everything else too. After all,
there *is* a reason why we have abstractions in the engine ;)

To me the situation is as simple as this: I declared a get accessor
for $foo. I did not declare the method __getfoo(). So why is that
method there?

It seems really pointless, counter-intuitive and hacky to me to
automatically create methods that do not actually exist (not under
that name at least).

Nikita