Re: Re: Re: Re: __get() not reentrant?

Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:

Richard Lynch wrote:

On Sun, May 22, 2005 3:24 pm, Christopher J. Bottaro said:

And what would make it any different from a normal recursive function?

The fact that *ANY* attempt to access a mis-typed property would kick in a __get() call, and that's too frickin' easy to happen in code that's too easy to fly by QA in large-scale applications springs to mind... Not saying you're "wrong" or they're "right" just that it's not quite as simple as a normal recursive function or loop iteration.

I completely disagree. I don't mean any offense to anyone here, but I find it kind of ridiculous for a language to restrict itself that like in this case. Its insulting to our intelligence as programmers.

and another thing, take this rather contrived/simple example of making set (as opposed to non-existent) [non-public] properties available via the property access syntax:

    public function __get($varName)
    {
        return isset($this->$varName) ? $this->$varName: null;
    }

which would be impossible to do as is if __get() was 'reentrant' (whatever that means exactly, we both/all at least know that we mean that you can call it recursively...) actually if __get() worked in such a recursive way then it would be impossible to actually access any properties of the object. also note that __get() only comes into play if the property requested is not public or is not set..... the internals mailing list has stuff in the archives about __get() which probably explains it a whole load better (including the reasoning behind the decisions etc etc) which may be of interest to you. these are not the droids your looking for, move along. :-)

-- C