Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65086
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50FE7579.1010409@zerocue.com>
References: <50F840F4.7080704@zerocue.com>
	<50FE7579.1010409@zerocue.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:24:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFMT4No15MXxUbc+RW_rQzum_c8Frr8EHcMOu-zUW7sQHYabng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>
Cc: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Property Accessors for 5.5
From: morrison.levi@gmail.com (Levi Morrison)

> For those that have voted against this proposal, are there any
> clarifications that can be made or questions answered?

I can say that this bit is particularly confusing:

    public $foo {}

My understanding that this code will not emit any warnings when
interpreted, but the $foo property has no getter nor setter. You can
call isset which will return false but unset will emit a warning, yes?

I would think that the above snippet would create a property with all
public, default implementations. I see why it doesn't: it doesn't
permit you to declare only a getter and no setter.

This is just one more reason for me to vote no on this.