Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65125 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32443 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2013 21:08:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Jan 2013 21:08:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cryptocompress@googlemail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cryptocompress@googlemail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cryptocompress@googlemail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.214.47 mail-bk0-f47.google.com Received: from [209.85.214.47] ([209.85.214.47:53159] helo=mail-bk0-f47.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F5/04-30997-66150015 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:08:56 -0500 Received: by mail-bk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id jc3so1455114bkc.20 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:08:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2D9e9T+tweaT7XsTMMl4yTBkL0grXU6e88tFOMagBeA=; b=bKW6JU+pmfyjJqUd3z68L0WPZzzwxAOz3zXEDMaJ4KufXlE4l+laUKKHSqA2ERhZS4 GnlZHb8biwoOxyYZybdldG22YLCAmK4WTpmjeEnKgQ+8kQ4qdbshK912wBgyYYcMmWA9 9wK94Ht90fWb0jjUaG/T03ABOWiBr2zDncAK3u6LaA+58N1PI8rlKO2wLO/Wc21FsAKc I3Iu98KBpqbXjM6JmHdmKkoPpj45ymCJGtltYwr1p5cq/adKUjn6r8gu4yHca1LnqJv5 hhInrpaC6FlcuNdmZKod/PZXiBSGMhQrIC8YvTxxXfbELCgD6UrWkv3PvaG5uJfGsj5Y fk4Q== X-Received: by 10.204.150.137 with SMTP id y9mr963275bkv.103.1358975331132; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:08:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.111] (mnch-5d85de30.pool.mediaWays.net. [93.133.222.48]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 18sm15456690bkv.0.2013.01.23.13.08.49 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:08:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <51005108.2010906@googlemail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:07:20 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <510038C9.5000900@mrclay.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] C# properties vs. accessors RFC From: cryptocompress@googlemail.com (Crypto Compress) > I'd just like to point out the fact that RFC v1.1 from a year ago was exactly as above but people wanted all of these other features. They were not a property, they had no "guarding", no unset, isset, etc. The original RFC that was exactly as c# had it, nobody liked it. It was changed to its current incarnation because it now mimics exactly what everyone is use to with __get(), etc. i think you refer to RFC 0.3 (could not find C# in 1.1): https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax#properties_in_c cryptocompress