Re: Property Overloading RFC

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Andi Gutmans wrote: > At 06:00 AM 8/25/2005, Edin Kadribasic wrote: > >Derick Rethans wrote: > > > And how can you possibly argue that this more complex than all the other > > > OO crap that people are suggesting here.... > > > >I belive that we should do our best to filter out this storm of OO > >feature requests. People want to make PHP look like some other OO > >languages for no good reason other that they're familiar with it or that > >their CS teacher thought they were cool. > > I completely agree. > This very much bloats the language syntax and would be mainly there for the > sake of OO fanatics. Guys, seriously, this kind of stuff and a lot of the > other OO proposals I've heard here lately are going to lead to PHP going down > the drain. Derick, the fact that you say it's not worse than "other OO crap > that people are suggesting here...." just means that it's also good to leave > the other crap out of PHP. I'm just arguing that the current way that setters and getters are implemented is broken. Instead of keeping a broken behavior I would like to see it fixed. > I don't see why the __get/__set/__isset/__unset methods themselves can't check > if the property exists and throw an exception if it doesn't. It has more to do with problems with encapsulation and visibility. Frederik made a nice summary of that, he will reply here: Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org