Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63974
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50A97B13.8040303@zerocue.com>
References: <50A97B13.8040303@zerocue.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CAF+90c-c727gcSr+cn0LjoMt3BcxnUcw+7SW4VNOK-95QMXsCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>
Cc: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0408394deb895504cedae1a9
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 Consensus Changes
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--f46d0408394deb895504cedae1a9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote:

> Can anyone who has an interest in this project please review over the
> "Current Consensus Changes" section of this document:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/**propertygetsetsyntax-as-**
> implemented/change-requests<https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-as-implemented/change-requests>
>
> Lets hear if there are any other concerns, otherwise in the next couple of
> days I will integrate these changes into the main RFC document and begin
> work on the changes from 1.1 -> 1.2.
>
> Still left open (undecided) is internal accessor method visibility and
> callability.  Primarily this is between Stas and Nikita, I prefer not
> visible (makes more sense to me) but callable (less difficult to implement,
> simpler for the code).  I would appreciate some more input on this topic
> from anyone interested.
>
> How long is it before 5.5 is in feature-freeze?  I'm guessing at this
> point that this will not make the 5.5 release, but depends on the powers
> that be.
>
> -Clint
>

The changes look good to me. Two notes:

1. The "internal accessor method visibility and callability" point should
really be "should accessors be implemented as magic methods?" Might help to
clarify what the discussion was actually about.

2. I never really meant the "DateTime $date;" syntax as just a shorthand
notation for the automatic setter with typehint. Rather it was meant as an
alternative way to do the typehinting in the first place. I.e. instead of
public $date { set(DateTime $date) {} } you would do public DateTime $date
{ set($date) { } } (like in C# for example). I would have preferred this
way (mainly because it allows to typehint even without specifying
accessors), but I can also live without it ^^

Thanks for your work on this,
Nikita

--f46d0408394deb895504cedae1a9--