Re: Property Accessors v1.2
| From: | Amaury Bouchard | Date: | Sat, 13 Oct 2012 12:35:17 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Property Accessors v1.2 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-63394@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
2012/10/13 Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>
> Interfaces are used to define what methods must be present, properties
> are not allowed.
>
Yes, so no one should be correct, right?
I mean, yes the first declaration implies some code; but for the interface,
it's still a property definition.
> *From:* amaury.bouchard@gmail.com [mailto:amaury.bouchard@gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Amaury Bouchard
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 13, 2012 5:06 AM
> *To:* Nikita Popov
> *Cc:* Benjamin Eberlei; Clint Priest; internals@lists.php.net
>
> *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-DEV [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2****
>
> ** **
>
> 2012/10/13 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>****
>
> interface Foo {****
>
> // this is okay
> public $abc { get; set; }
>
> // this is invalid
> public $abc;
> }****
>
> ** **
>
> Sorry, I missed something. Why the first should be correct but not the
> second one?****
>
> For me it's exactly the same thing.****
>