# Accessors v2.2 Patch

- Thread: https://externals.io/message/56880
- Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/56880
- Started by Clint M Priest on 2011-12-12T04:01:31+00:00
- Messages: 3
- Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net
- More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt

---

## #56880 — Clint M Priest — 2011-12-12T04:01:31+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/56880#56880

https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug=49526&patch=v2.2&revision=1323662103

This one addresses the read-only, write-only aspects.  Though they are not quite what the RFC specifies...

class TimePeriod {
   public $Hours {
      get { return 5; }
   }
}

$o = new TimePeriod();
$o->Hours = 4;

Results in:
Fatal error: Cannot set read-only property TimePeriod::$Hours, no setter defined. in %s on line %d

Likewise in the other direction for write-only properties.

The difficulty is that one could extend TimePeriod and define a setter.  This is what the RFC talks about when using a readonly keyword.  There presently isn't a readonly keyword defined, nor a writeonly.

Should we create a readonly/writeonly keyword, or would something along these lines be better/more flexible?

class TimePeriod {
   public $Hours {
      get { return 5; }
     private final set { }
   }
}

Creating (forcing the author to create) a private final setter which would not allow a set to occur and could not be over-ridden?

I've also added two tests for the read-only and write-only, as it exists in the above patch.

Pierre, with the new/updated RFC, should I gut the sections that I decided against (such as the several alternate syntaxes) or leave them in?

-Clint

---

## #56882 — Will Fitch — 2011-12-12T11:22:09+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/56880#56882 · In reply to: #56880

Clint,

How about

final public $Hours {}

That would allow for the read only and limit the inheritance.

Sent from my iPhone



> https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug=49526&patch=v2.2&revision=1323662103
>
> This one addresses the read-only, write-only aspects.  Though they are not quite what the RFC specifies...
>
> class TimePeriod {
>   public $Hours {
>      get { return 5; }
>   }
> }
>
> $o = new TimePeriod();
> $o->Hours = 4;
>
> Results in:
> Fatal error: Cannot set read-only property TimePeriod::$Hours, no setter defined. in %s on line %d
>
> Likewise in the other direction for write-only properties.
>
> The difficulty is that one could extend TimePeriod and define a setter.  This is what the RFC talks about when using a readonly keyword.  There presently isn't a readonly keyword defined, nor a writeonly.
>
> Should we create a readonly/writeonly keyword, or would something along these lines be better/more flexible?
>
> class TimePeriod {
>   public $Hours {
>      get { return 5; }
>     private final set { }
>   }
> }
>
> Creating (forcing the author to create) a private final setter which would not allow a set to occur and could not be over-ridden?
>
> I've also added two tests for the read-only and write-only, as it exists in the above patch.
>
> Pierre, with the new/updated RFC, should I gut the sections that I decided against (such as the several alternate syntaxes) or leave them in?
>
> -Clint

---

## #56896 — Clint M Priest — 2011-12-13T00:11:20+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/56880#56896 · In reply to: #56882

This wouldn't quite address the concern.  This already works and prevents any modification/override to the accessor.  

The spec talks about being able to allow an over-ride of the get and non-override of the setter (or in the readonly case, no setter defined).

-----Original Message-----
From: Will Fitch [mailto:will.fitch@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 5:22 AM
To: Clint M Priest
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Accessors v2.2 Patch

Clint,

How about

final public $Hours {}

That would allow for the read only and limit the inheritance.

Sent from my iPhone



> https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug=49526&patch=v2.2&revision=1323662103
>
> This one addresses the read-only, write-only aspects.  Though they are not quite what the RFC specifies...
>
> class TimePeriod {
>   public $Hours {
>      get { return 5; }
>   }
> }
>
> $o = new TimePeriod();
> $o->Hours = 4;
>
> Results in:
> Fatal error: Cannot set read-only property TimePeriod::$Hours, no setter defined. in %s on line %d
>
> Likewise in the other direction for write-only properties.
>
> The difficulty is that one could extend TimePeriod and define a setter.  This is what the RFC talks about when using a readonly keyword.  There presently isn't a readonly keyword defined, nor a writeonly.
>
> Should we create a readonly/writeonly keyword, or would something along these lines be better/more flexible?
>
> class TimePeriod {
>   public $Hours {
>      get { return 5; }
>     private final set { }
>   }
> }
>
> Creating (forcing the author to create) a private final setter which would not allow a set to occur and could not be over-ridden?
>
> I've also added two tests for the read-only and write-only, as it exists in the above patch.
>
> Pierre, with the new/updated RFC, should I gut the sections that I decided against (such as the several alternate syntaxes) or leave them in?
>
> -Clint