Re: Class Properties in Interfaces?

Hi Marcus! Am Dienstag, den 06.05.2008, 21:45 +0200 schrieb Marcus Boerger: [...] > All fine with me. However we *would* need to specify which function is > getter, setter, isset or unset. [...] > > public $property { > string public function __get() { > return $this->_property; > } > string protected function __set(string $value) {...} > } That's the variant I prefer. It is pretty similar to the C# does it and therefore follows the common PHP strategy of steeling everything together ;) [...] > The advantage of keeping everything inside the property definition is that > there is no need at all for any new keyword. And the handlers cannot get > separated. The disadvantage is that the functions are always named __get and > so on for all properties, so PHP would need to do an internal renaming. > Which means we probably would not be able to call the functions manually. Do you see any real use-case for calling them directly? > That larger handlers could clutter the code doesn't appear to be a > disadvantage for me as it can easily be avoided if the handler just > forwards the call. Either that or folding in the editor helps etc. pp. > The next question I have now is what to do when people want direct access > to the underlying value? I would think that accessing $this->property from __get()/__set() of the property would address the value itself. Everything else would be redirected to the accessors. > Or do we force people to always specify get,set,isset und unset? Or > should we only enforce get/set and have isset > and unset emulated with them (isset()~>isset(get()), > unset()~>set(NULL))? Not sure about that. Forcing the user to define four accessors for a property seems to be clutter but it would be - technically spoken - correct. I don't have a fixed opinion here. cu, Lars

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil signature.asc