RE: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Property get/set syntax
| From: | Clint M Priest | Date: | Sun, 22 Apr 2012 03:48:27 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Property get/set syntax | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-60256@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalyshev@sugarcrm.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 10:33 PM
> To: Clint M Priest
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 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.
I see, well the only way to resolve this would be to add isset and unset property functions as well.
Anyone against it?
>
> > 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.
Returning by reference was not documented in the original RFC, would this syntax work for everyone?
public $Hours {
&get { return $this->a; }
}
>
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
> (408)454-6900 ext. 227