Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84496
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain garfieldtech.com from 66.111.4.26 cause and error)
Message-ID: <54FE6406.6050209@garfieldtech.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:24:54 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CA+FrEoKBhRErj2i_rSyeOyTBHAYw-OxjMKPGz6dDhayCMeWsKQ@mail.gmail.com> <F929CDB4-F44D-4D37-AEBF-C2C32C35A30B@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F929CDB4-F44D-4D37-AEBF-C2C32C35A30B@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Request Feedback for Instance Variable Sugar RFC
From: larry@garfieldtech.com (Larry Garfield)

On 03/09/2015 04:26 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 9 March 2015 09:43:32 GMT, Shawn McCool <shawn@heybigname.com> wrote:
>
>> In order to access instance variables, one must use the `$this->`
>> prefix.
>> The problem with this is that it reduces expressiveness in the language
>> and
>> increases the amount of unnecessary decoration, reducing readability.
> I disagree with this premise. The $this here is not just decorative syntax, it's an actual variable, which can be passed around just like any other variable. The -> is then the standard way of accessing a property or method, applied to that variable.
>
> This is beautifully simple, and expresses what's going on perfectly: if you look at $this->foo, and ask "which foo is being referenced here?", the answer is clearly "the one which is a property of $this".
>
> The only places I can see value in a shorthand are in constructors and setters, where you're just copying from one name to another ($this->foo = $foo). But the part that's redundant there is the variable/property names, not the $this, so what you need is getter/setter support, or shorthand constructors (you should be able to find previous RFCs for both).
>
> Regards,

I concur.  I don't see much advantage of a short hand in this case, but 
I would love to see someone pick up both the property RFC (which implied 
short-hand getter/setters) and shorthand constructors. (It's undoubtedly 
too late for 7.0, but they'd be great additions for 7.1.)

--Larry Garfield