Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63670
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: <508C249D.1000309@zerocue.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:14:53 -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: internals@lists.php.net
References: <508A67E6.2000405@zerocue.com>	<508A9AC9.50200@sugarcrm.com> <CAF+90c-VmscV0q=RAk7FE6+RLhjY8t9CRGY7QqpjB+3=b2XJTQ@mail.gmail.com> <508AF3E7.7020004@sugarcrm.com> <CAF+90c-RXwG7r=BW6_pDjRTaO3vJx6fGJhdwXV38GqHfBZNHVw@mail.gmail.com> <508B1EA2.8060203@sugarcrm.com>
In-Reply-To: <508B1EA2.8060203@sugarcrm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 : Internal Accessor Method
 Visibility / Callability
From: cpriest@zerocue.com (Clint Priest)


On 10/26/2012 6:37 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Stas, if you define an accessor, how do you define it? Do you say
> Either way, doesn't matter.
>
>> According to the current proposal at least you can write the first
>> code *and the first code only*. If you write the second code then you
> That's where I think it is wrong. It would be much simpler and
> consistent with existing PHP if it were a natural extension of __get
> instead of a completely new and foreign concept.
>
>> special behavior for properties. You probably won't start off with
>> telling them that this declaration is automatically converted to a set
>> of __getFoo methods which are registered as handlers for the accessor.
>> I really don't see how going into details like __getFoo makes anything
>> easier.
> Depending on your purpose and background. If you know how __get works,
> extrapolating to __getFoo is trivial. Getting special syntax that
> produces __getFoo from this is also trivial.
>
> Getting the concept of methods that are not quite methods and get called
> only through special intercept mechanism and have special backtrace
> rewriting engine and reflection hiding patches so you can be inside the
> method that officially does not exist - not so trivial.
The only thing that does back patching is for static accessors and 
you've already pointed out that what I was doing to make that happen is 
just going to break and fail in so many ways.

What is "reflection hiding patches" referring to?  Reflection is changed 
to reflect what the user has defined, that's what reflection is supposed 
to be.. no?

Lastly, this idea that accessors is such a foreign concept is a bit 
ridiculous.  You'd be hard pressed to find a modern/popular language 
these days that doesn't have them, so if someone is confused about what 
an accessor is then they probably have their head in the sand, god 
forbid they'd have to read the manual.

-- 
-Clint