Re: RFC: C-sharp style property get/set syntax for PHP

> 2010/12/1 Richard Quadling <rquadling@gmail.com> > >> On 1 December 2010 09:22, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote: >> > Hi! >> > >> >> Its not a matter of consistency - Properties, as a cross-language >> concept >> >> are not meant to work that way. You need to think of a property as a >> set >> > >> > Meant by whom? Is there some law of universe that prevents us from >> > implementing the feature? >> > >> >> of two methods that just have a pretty syntax. Methods cannot be >> unset, >> >> and nor should properties be allowed to. isset() should simply tell >> us >> >> whether a property with the specified name is part of the class or >> not. >> > >> > If you need methods, why not use methods? If you mimick object >> properties, >> > however, it makes sense to make them work exactly like property, >> otherwise >> > you have to explain why they don't work this way. >> > >> >> isset() in the way you suggest would just be confusing. It would >> allow >> is >> >> to say that a property does not exist, when in fact it does exist. >> This >> >> is not logical. >> > >> > Sorry, from your answer I don't understand - what happens when you >> call >> > isset($foo->property) and unset($foo->property)? >> >> If we think of properties as this new entity for the language (rather >> than somehow massaging existing entities to fit a new usage scenario), >> then >> >> isset($instance->property) will always return true for any defined >> property. Even if the getter would return null. This is new behaviour >> and can be easily documented. isset() for a property is more like >> method_exists() than isset() on a variable. >> With regard to unset($instance->property), from the manual ... ... > Why change the expected behavior of isset? If a property has not been set > then isset must return false, and that includes $foo->name = NULL. Thats simple then, when isset is invoked, call the get method, and if it returns null then isset() returns false, but otherwise returns true. That was likely just a small oversight on Richard's part. - Dennis