Re: Property Accessors v1.2

Hi! > In regards to #11, yes, you'd just write {}. I imagine you could also This doesn't work for the same class (and for traits which put things in the context of the same class) - it would not behave as "no setter", it would behave as "there's a setter doing nothing". Is this the proposed solution? Exception is a possibility but then everybody would do it differently which reduces the value of standardizing it (the whole point of having accessors since otherwise we could just do __get and throw exceptions). > We went through multiple alternative options to read/write-only, and the > implementation you see in the 1.2 RFC is the most widely agreed upon > proposal. I don't doubt that there is room for improvement in this area, > but we haven't had any further proposals as of yet. Actually, I do not see anything explicitly said in the proposal that works for the cases outlined above. I wanted to just make sure if that means "no solution currently" (then should be on TODO list) or "we have a solution but it's not outlined in the RFC" (should be added then). -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227