Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65140
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <510065B8.7040608@zerocue.com>
References: <510038C9.5000900@mrclay.org>
	<B103E205-5F44-4524-9BCD-7BF241F7E552@zerocue.com>
	<CAFMT4Nq+27=7BuqrJggjjf8mT_NBAXr7v-qzkWazFgdQLYTRew@mail.gmail.com>
	<510065B8.7040608@zerocue.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:36:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+p1TcYSirap4MP0RPaWr7+nV7KuF6VqLsDOCsuEQgRY4e+Z=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>
Cc: Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] C# properties vs. accessors RFC
From: arraypad@gmail.com (Arpad Ray)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote:
> On 1/23/2013 3:17 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>> Clint: I'm sorry that you spent all that time without hearing feedback
>> from a lot of the "No" voters. Had they been participating all along
>> perhaps it could have been avoided. We'll never know.
>
> I appreciate that, I'm hearing through the grapevine that some of the "no"
> voters haven't even looked at the patch.
>

Hi,

I voted "no" and I haven't looked at the patch, because my interest in
it doesn't extend that far.

I simply don't like the idea - it adds nothing to the language which
can't already reasonably be done, and for what it does, I find the
code harder to follow.

I'd personally much rather have $foo->setBar(42); than $foo->bar = 42;
doing something magic, even if the accessor would save a few lines of
code.

Even if I agreed with the idea, I think the "show stopper" of the
"parent::$foo" issue is still present. Forcing people to use
reflection to get a parent property is an absurd (albeit nifty)
workaround. People complain about the lack of consistency in PHP
enough already. I also think that in the RFC, it's a bit disingenuous
to only mention this limitation in a comment on the 38th line of a
code example

Regards,

Arpad