Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64525 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 15796 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2013 15:36:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 Jan 2013 15:36:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lars@strojny.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lars@strojny.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain strojny.net from 46.4.40.248 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lars@strojny.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 46.4.40.248 milch.schokokeks.org Received: from [46.4.40.248] ([46.4.40.248:58098] helo=milch.schokokeks.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FC/51-00128-9E6F6E05 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:36:10 -0500 Received: from lstrojnypro3.fritz.box (ppp-93-104-5-67.dynamic.mnet-online.de [::ffff:93.104.5.67]) (AUTH: PLAIN lars@schokokeks.org, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by milch.schokokeks.org with ESMTPSA; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:36:06 +0100 id 000000000000001A.0000000050E6F6E6.00007C13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) In-Reply-To: <50E6F501.4090806@zerocue.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 16:36:01 +0100 Cc: Stas Malyshev , PHP Developers Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <50E41BB6.4030901@zerocue.com> <50E648BE.2060005@zerocue.com> <50E6822D.9060807@sugarcrm.com> <71B3F435-4289-473B-B4D7-EB2DB5F888A9@zerocue.com> <7213E637-26A2-4F44-82DE-297E751726CD@zerocue.com> <50E6F501.4090806@zerocue.com> To: Clint Priest X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-RFC] Property Accessors 1.2 : parent::$foo Issue From: lars@strojny.net (Lars Strojny) Hi Clint, got it.=20 Am 04.01.2013 um 16:28 schrieb Clint Priest : > Uhm.. brain fart. >=20 > I was thinking $this->$foo was normal when I wrote this up, I would = change my last statement from the earlier email to any syntax which did = not include a $. >=20 > That being said then, I think I favor parent->foo the best. It=92s not really a matter of syntax, but a matte of principle. We = shouldn=92t burden our users with another syntax to achieve the same = thing. cu, Lars=