Re: __toString(), __toArray()

I am not forcing anything, it's already there, that's definitely a more useful magic, if people would add a new one, __cast is not critical, catchable objects are __catch even if exists, so my point I 'd rather see useful requests than a unseful one e.g __cast from my perspective __toString and __toArray , __callStatic should be removed __callStatic is definitly a mistake. On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Eddie Drapkin <oorza2k5@gmail.com> wrote: > What you're proposing is just forcing __call, _callStatic, __get and > __set into a single method, which does nothing to reduce the amount of > magic, only obfuscate it.  And it certainly offers no alternative to > "__cast", at least not that I can see. > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:11 PM, mm w <0xcafefeed@gmail.com> wrote: >> the multiplication of magic, the pointed point, need to read more carefully >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Eddie Drapkin <oorza2k5@gmail.com> wrote: >>> How does this have *anything* to do with the discussion at hand? >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:09 PM, mm w <0xcafefeed@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> don't worry it's only for people who are working with MVC and >>>> RootObject structure, there is too much magics already and __cast is >>>> not needed at all, >>>> as we cannot monkey patch to add an observer on itself, a nice >>>> solution should have a catchable object so __catch any calls >>>> >>>> function __catch($data, $type) { >>>>    if (method == $type) { >>>>         if (data[selector] = 'setValue' && >>>> observedValueForKeyPath) { >>>>             $this->_setValue(($data['arg']); >>>>             return; >>>>         } >>>>    } >>>>    continue_natural_call(); >>>> } >>>> >>>> we could imagine to have a root-object-built-in-class that is >>>> naturally observable, or a root classObject at all, anyway it's only >>>> something for people who are doing OO programming, >>>> so don't worry >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Chris Stockton >>>> <chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:32 PM, mm w <0xcafefeed@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> cast is not needed in PHP >>>>>> >>>>>> i 'd rather be more interesting in >>>>>> >>>>>> class Obj { >>>>>>     function __catch($data, $type) { >>>>>>            //$type [ static_method, method, get_property, >>>>>> set_property] >>>>>>            if (observed &&  $type == set_property && >>>>>> somevalueIsObserved) { >>>>>>                 >>>>>>  $observer->notify("somevalue::valueWillChanged"); >>>>>>                  $this->somevalue = >>>>>> $data['somevalue']; >>>>>>                 >>>>>>  $observer->notify("somevalue::valueDidChanged"); >>>>>>            } else { >>>>>>                  continue__call(); >>>>>>            } >>>>>>     } >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> What? ... >>>>> >>>>>>> Etienne Kneuss wrote: >>>>>>> This is where operator over-loading would be useful however perhaps >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> explicit casts would make sense here. >>>>> >>>>> I beleive adding a __cast(string $type) would be a useful feature for >>>>> me, very often I have a toArray method defined. I agree with you that >>>>> due to unexpected edge cases with operator precedence and general type >>>>> juggling that __cast should only be called on explicit (cast). >>>>> >>>>> I.E.: >>>>> class Int { public function __cast($type) { return 'int' == $type ? >>>>> 15 : 0; } } >>>>> $r = new Int; >>>>> >>>>> var_dump($r + 1); // 2 >>>>> var_dump((int) $r + 1); // 16 >>>>> var_dump((bool) $r + 1); // 1 >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>>> >>>> >>> >> >