Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65126 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 34249 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2013 21:13:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Jan 2013 21:13:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cpriest@zerocue.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cpriest@zerocue.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zerocue.com designates 67.200.53.250 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cpriest@zerocue.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.200.53.250 mail.zerocue.com Received: from [67.200.53.250] ([67.200.53.250:46389] helo=mail.zerocue.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0D/64-30997-08250015 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:13:36 -0500 Received: from [172.17.0.122] (unknown [70.112.216.188]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.zerocue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA3611203A3; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:13:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51005275.1050304@zerocue.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:13:25 -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: Crypto Compress CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <510038C9.5000900@mrclay.org> <51005108.2010906@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <51005108.2010906@googlemail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090707020401050609080205" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] C# properties vs. accessors RFC From: cpriest@zerocue.com (Clint Priest) --------------090707020401050609080205 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/23/2013 3:07 PM, Crypto Compress wrote: > > 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 > Well actually you're right. .3 was written by Dennis long ago and I wrote accessors to be exactly as that document described except where there was ambiguity. The 1.1 document had already deviated from his original RFC by way of discussion but I had not been tracking them as separate documents. If you go back in history on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-as-implemented you will see a point where it matches the original spec more or less completely. > cryptocompress > -- -Clint --------------090707020401050609080205--