Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64487
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: <50E4A43E.6030302@zerocue.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:18:54 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Philip Graham <philip.robert.graham@gmail.com>
CC: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <50E41BB6.4030901@zerocue.com> <CADEasVEHFOgC_f-YFHPu4JoWogLgjiLouNX55oQUgSDyLM_Ggg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADEasVEHFOgC_f-YFHPu4JoWogLgjiLouNX55oQUgSDyLM_Ggg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-RFC] Property Accessors 1.2 for Final Review before
 Vote
From: cpriest@zerocue.com (Clint Priest)

On 1/2/2013 12:44 PM, Philip Graham wrote:
> I am confused by one thing about the RFC.  There is a section for default
> accessor implementations where you specify an accessor without a body,
> however many of the examples omit the isset and unset accessors.  I would
> assuming that omitting an accessor would provide the automagic
> implementation.  If this is the case what is the need for the special
> syntax?  If this is not the case then what is the effect of omitting an
> accessor?
Omitting get/set declaration (and body) makes the property read only or 
write only.

Omitting isset/unset has the same effect as declaring it without a 
body.  This is described in the RFC under Automatic Implementations with 
this line:

Note that isset/unset implementations will always be provided if they 
are not defined or if they are explicitly auto-defined (as above).

>
> I do see that omitting the setter creates a read-only property, however I
> think the syntax would be less ambiguous and easier to use by introducing a
> `readonly` keyword:
>
>      class MyClass
>      {
>          public readonly $myProp {
>              // ...
>          }
>      }
>
> This would also eliminate the need for additional syntax for default
> accessors.  There is one problem I see with this however, what happens when
> a setter is provided for a readonly property?
>
> If this has already been discussed, please accept my apologies and maybe
> provide a link to the discussion.
This point of contention was discussed ad nauseam and nobody wanted the 
read-only/write-only keywords, they were removed from 1.1 -> 1.2

Please see this document: 
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-as-implemented/change-requests

Which documents all points of contention from 1.1 and what their 
resolution was.

>
> Regards,
> Philip
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote:
>
>> Here is the updated RFC incorporating the feedback from previous rounds of
>> discussion.
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/**propertynot getsetsyntax-v1.2<https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2>
>>
>> I'm posting it for final review so I can move to voting on Jan 7th.
>>
>> Please note that the current fork is not quite up-to-date with the RFC but
>> will be within a few more days.
>>
>> -Clint
>>
>> --
>> -Clint
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>>

-- 
-Clint