Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63684 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 7734 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2012 06:47:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Oct 2012 06:47:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.153 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.153 smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.153] ([67.192.241.153:37949] helo=smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0D/A2-18930-715DC805 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 01:47:51 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp25.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id AC8022D00C8; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:47:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp25.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 4B1E62D0035; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:47:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <508CD50F.5040107@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:47:43 +0100 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Clint Priest CC: Patrick Schaaf , "internals@lists.php.net" References: <508A67E6.2000405@zerocue.com> <508C2267.2040205@zerocue.com> <1386509.9ZAIcfOWKR@rofl> <508C7F59.7000609@zerocue.com> In-Reply-To: <508C7F59.7000609@zerocue.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 : Internal Accessor Method Visibility / Callability From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > 1) Currently __get() is only checked/invoked if there is not a property > already defined; ie properties shadow __get() (no performance penalty) Yes, that's kind of the point of it - extending __get. > 2) It would dramatically reduce performance because every property > access would have to create the function string, get it's hash value and > do a hash look up against the function table, just to see if there is a Not really, as we have property_info structure where we could record the existence of such functions and we check property_info anyway AFAIR. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227