RE: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Property get/set syntax
| From: | Clint Priest | Date: | Mon, 09 Jul 2012 02:46:40 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Property get/set syntax | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-61114@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
I've just recently had my second child and closed on a new house, so been a bit busy.
I'll be working to finish up what's left in the coming weeks.
Right now I'm told there are some conflicts with a merge from master that I have to resolve,
then the fork will be ready for playing around with. Hopefully I'll have that fixed up later
this week.
From: Benjamin Eberlei [mailto:kontakt@beberlei.de]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:55 AM
To: Clint Priest
Cc: Stas Malyshev; internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Property get/set syntax
What is the state here with regard to merge into php-src?
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Clint M Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com<mailto:cpriest@zerocue.com>> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stas Malyshev
> [mailto:smalyshev@sugarcrm.com<mailto:smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>]
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 10:33 PM
> To: Clint M Priest
> Cc:
> internals@lists.php.net<mailto: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<tel:%28408%29454-6900%20ext.%20227>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php