Re: (*PATCH*) getters/setters Implementation

31 марта 2012 г. 18:19 пользователь Clint M Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> написал: > The patches are applied to this fork if anyone wants to check it out: > > https://github.com/cpriest/php-src > It would be easier to discuss/review your patch if you'd make pull request: https://wiki.php.net/vcs/gitworkflow#workflow_for_external_contributors Thank you. > -----Original Message----- > From: Clint M Priest [mailto:cpriest@zerocue.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:14 PM > To: internals@lists.php.net > Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] (*PATCH*) getters/setters Implementation > > Thanks for the feedback, I'll take care of some of these. > > What did you mean about the out of sync regarding naming? > > With the unexpected values to the methods I'm not sure what you mean, there are no > 'expected values' to be passed. > > For the auto-backed properties it would be assigned to whatever value was being passed, null or > whatever.  For the non auto-backed properties it would depend on the user-supplied getter/setter > implementation.  Am I missing something here? > > Regarding the open questions on read-only/write-only I don't think they are strictly > necessary any longer.  The original RFC had them for enforcing a value to be read only but it would > be equivalent of setting an accessor with just a getter and final although it would allow for it to > be over-ridden.  Are the read-only/write-only tags desired? > > I think the test cases that are present are complete, I could not think of any further tests to > write or I would have written them, any suggestions? > > I'll update the RFC with backward compatibility comments though I believe there are none, > anyone else see any backward compatibility issues? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Jones [mailto:christopher.jones@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:14 PM > To: internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] (*PATCH*) getters/setters Implementation > > > > On 03/28/2012 08:13 PM, Clint M Priest wrote: > >> What are the next steps to get this added to some future release? >> Attached is a patch against ~/trunk > > A couple of brief comments from the sidelines without having followed previous discussion in > detail: > > - The RFC appears to have open questions e.g about the need for readonly etc keywords > - The tests and RFC are out of sync regarding naming, e.g. readonly vs read-only > - The RFC makes no mention of backward compatibility issues > - Did I miss seeing tests that pass in unexpected values to the methods? > - I would expect a larger number of tests overall when the feature is merged/completed. > - If these are indeed magic methods they need "__" prefixes, so consider the names >   __getter and __setter > - I'd suggest biting the github bullet and creating your own PHP fork with your >   patches.  People will be able to test and you might get more feedback. > > -- > Email: christopher.jones@oracle.com > Tel:  +1 650 506 8630 > Blog:  http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/ > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: > http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > -- Regards, Shein Alexey