RE: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-DEV [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2
| From: | Clint Priest | Date: | Sat, 13 Oct 2012 12:48:52 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-DEV [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-63396@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
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.
You're mixing concepts here, it's an accessor definition, not a property definition.
property != accessor, an accessor just happens to look and act like a property (which is the point
of accessors).
From: amaury.bouchard@gmail.com<mailto:amaury.bouchard@gmail.com>
[mailto: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<mailto:internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-DEV [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2
2012/10/13 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com<mailto: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.