Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97444
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain brzuchalski.com designates 188.165.245.118 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6d4632cb-93b3-4237-a803-6b7ec13dae4a@Spark>
References: <6d4632cb-93b3-4237-a803-6b7ec13dae4a@Spark>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 23:29:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CABdc3Wp21RsX5CKVqiN4BPC6xY7fdFqAgsfmvVg8OeErdxe3gA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ilija.tovilo@me.com
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142e1b69cdebc05440a74ef
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BPHP=2DDEV=5D_Revisit_RFC_=E2=80=9CProperty_Accessors_Synt?=
	=?UTF-8?Q?ax_1=2E2=E2=80=9D?=
From: michal@brzuchalski.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Brzuchalski?=)

--001a1142e1b69cdebc05440a74ef
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Ilija,

I have no vote rights, but this one is on my "Nice To Have Features in PHP"
list too.

+1 for property getters/setters

Cheers,

2016-12-19 21:57 GMT+01:00 <ilija.tovilo@me.com>:

> Hi everyone
>
> There was an RFC about a C#-like property syntax almost four years ago
> that got declined:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2
>
> It failed by only 2-3 votes. In my opinion, PHP is still in need of this
> feature as it would make the language much more expressive. Let me start =
by
> defining the problem. First of all, almost all PHP frameworks hide their
> variables behind getters and setters. Here are some of the reasons why th=
at
> is a good idea, I=E2=80=99m sure there are many more:
>
> - Ability to sanitize input
> - Ability to lazily load data when requested (getter was called)
> - Ability to expose only getter or setter publicly
> - Easily mockable accessors for unit tests
> - Ability to execute arbitrary code when accessors are called
> - Modifiable business logic without breaking the API
>
> Here are some of the negatives, though there are probably more here as
> well:
>
> - Large boilerplate for normal getters/setters
> - Inconsistent syntax for reading/writing data
>     - Calling a method for setting data instead of using the more
> intuitive `=3D` operator
>     - Calling a method for accessing foreign variables while accessing
> private variables directly
> - Inability to use built in assignment operators like .=3D, +=3D, -=3D, e=
tc.
> - Disregard of the DRY principle
>
> The positives clearly outweigh the negatives as they are mostly
> syntactical. This is probably why using getters/setters everywhere has be=
en
> a good-enough solution for such a long time. Because of that, just like t=
he
> positives, the negatives have become a part of the language. Clearly,
> abandoning getters and setters is no option for anyone. Nonetheless, the
> RFC I linked above offers a way to get rid of the negatives without
> sacrificing any of the positives.
>
> Are there still any people who would like to see this happening just as
> much as I do?
> I=E2=80=99m wondering if some of the people who have voted against the RF=
C might
> have changed their opinion or vice versa.
>
> Many thanks for reading!
>
> Regards,
> Ilija
>
>


--=20
regards / pozdrawiam,
--
Micha=C5=82 Brzuchalski
about.me/brzuchal
brzuchalski.com

--001a1142e1b69cdebc05440a74ef--