Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65095
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: <50FF0773.2070600@zerocue.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:41:07 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>
CC: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <50F840F4.7080704@zerocue.com> <50FE7579.1010409@zerocue.com> <CAFMT4No15MXxUbc+RW_rQzum_c8Frr8EHcMOu-zUW7sQHYabng@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4No15MXxUbc+RW_rQzum_c8Frr8EHcMOu-zUW7sQHYabng@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Property Accessors for 5.5
From: cpriest@zerocue.com (Clint Priest)

On 1/22/2013 9:24 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>> 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?
This is correct except in the case where you are inheriting the 
property.  The above, on it's own class would be pointless.
> I would think that the above snippet would create a property with all
> public, default implementations.
If you are looking to create a public property with default 
implementations, the following will suffice and has for a long time:

public $foo;
> I see why it doesn't: it doesn't
> permit you to declare only a getter and no setter.
Not sure what you mean here, you can declare a property with a getter 
and no setter, such as:

public $foo { get; }

Which allows the property to be read, but not written, this is what the 
asymmetrical access is about.
> This is just one more reason for me to vote no on this.

-- 
-Clint