Re: RFC: Property get/set syntax

Hi! > empty() - Returns true for a property retrieved via __get() or via a > getter -- Any idea why this would be the case for __get()? Is this a > bug? isset() calls __isset(), empty() calls __isset() and __get(). I'm not sure what exactly you consider to be a bug. > unset() - Would unset a temporary variable (the one returned by the > getter) -- see previous email re: adding unset/isset property > functions. unset() calls __unset(). > sort() - Does the same thing as with __get()/__set() which is to say, > the array is sorted but the property is not updated with the value. > Should accessor behave differently than the magic methods? Should > this just be documents or should this be fixed? sort() works just fine if you define __get to return by-ref. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227