RE: [PHP-DEV] Accessors v2 Patch
| From: | Johannes Schlüter | Date: | Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:52:09 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PHP-DEV] Accessors v2 Patch | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-56898@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 01:01 +0000, Clint M Priest wrote:
> To be complete I should probably add something to the reflection system as well. At present
> the getters/setters would show up as functions.
>
> What would be preferable?
> 1) Show up as regular functions and let users fend for themselves?
> 2) Hide from getMethods() and:
> 2.1) Provide getAccessors() - Probably returning a new ReflectionPropertyAccessor class?
> 2.2) Provide getGetters(), getSetters()
> 3) Modify ReflectionProperty to include hasGetter() and hasSetter()
>
> Comments?
Reflection in PHP typically is leaking the implementation details
typically quite a lot instead of abstracting things away (interfaces and
Traits are ReflectionClass instances etc.)
I didn't look at the implementation but if these accessors are
implemented as methods (especially if it can be called just like one) I
would go for approach 1) and probably mark with a flag. For everything
else we'd probably have to clean-u reflection to leak less details to
make sense.
johannes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre.php@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 6:47 PM
> To: Clint M Priest
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Accessors v2 Patch
>
> oh right, I missed them. Yes, so it is covered as well :)
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Clint M Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote:
> > There are already two tests against private read and private write, should I add two for
> > protected as well?
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net |
> http://www.libgd.org
>