Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78431
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.208 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
In-Reply-To: <544FA716.2030508@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:08:11 +0000
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <ABF60DD2-24F7-4016-85B8-8D8585442BC1@ajf.me>
References: <6E04B9BE-854E-4112-8C74-7D90BD8BFE95@ajf.me> <544D48A3.6070905@gmail.com> <572FEBD1-99A8-4788-83F9-D99E470FB16D@ajf.me> <544F4321.8040302@seld.be> <E87E48F1-5D79-4C6A-9368-C0A3CA35501F@ajf.me> <544FA716.2030508@gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly Properties
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)


> On 28 Oct 2014, at 14:24, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Andrea Faulds wrote on 28/10/2014 14:08:
>>> >On 28 Oct 2014, at 07:17, Jordi Boggiano<j.boggiano@seld.be>  =
wrote:
>>> >
>>> >I like it, except for the fact that if you add a custom getter to a =
property suddenly it becomes readonly unless you remember to add "; set" =
to the end of the block, right?
>> Well, no. If you choose to specify getters and setters, and only =
specify a setter, of course it is read-only. It doesn=E2=80=99t make =
sense to have a getter and no setter and yet expect a property to be =
writeable.
>>=20
>=20
> I think the problem is that the get and set annotations are serving =
multiple purposes - to change the visibility, to define custom =
accessor/mutator code, but also to declare whether certain actions are =
possible at all. Since the default is for the property to be readable =
and writable, the fact that adding "{ get; }" makes it readonly isn't =
immediately intuitive, although it does makes sense once you think about =
it.

Hmm. Perhaps we need this, then:

public $foobar; // public read, private write
public/private $foobar; // public read, private write
public readonly $foobar; // public read, not writeable at all

This then confined set/get entirely to implementation details. A =
read-only property would be denoted by readonly.

With the last one, you can only have get, for the first two, you must =
have both get and set.

Does that work? Seems pretty good to me.

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/