RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Propety Accessors v1.1
| From: | Johannes Schlüter | Date: | Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:17:38 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Propety Accessors v1.1 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-63323@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 11:53 +0000, Clint Priest wrote:
> > On 10 October 2012 01:16, Johannes Schlüter <johannes@schlueters.de> wrote:
> > > Up until now reflection is leaky and is telling the truth. We should
> > > either keep that or completely clean up reflection.
> >
> > Reflection should always tell the truth, or there is no point in it.
> >
>
> Unfortunately the "truth" here is subjective.
>
> Does the PHP programmer need the "truth of underlying language
> implementation details" or do they need the "truth" of what they've
> defined?
>
> I would argue that if the PHP programmer has defined a property
> accessor then the truth to him/her is that it's a property accessor
> and should be "reflected" as such. The fact that the underlying php
> language implements it internally as a series of functions isn't
> relevant and is a distortion of the truth, from the perspective of the
> PHP programmer.
The truth is like 2this is what the engine is behaving like". To my
understanding those methods could be called explicitly and exist. As
such for the engine they are there.
johannes