Re: [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 : Internal Accessor Method Visibility / Callability

Hi! > If I got it right now, what Stas wants is that we introduce __getFoo > and __setFoo methods that will be called whenever an undefined ->foo > property is accessed and that the "normal" property accessors syntax > is made nothing more than a fancy notation for this. Yes, pretty much, though "undefined" bit is not required I think. Not 100% convinced on this, but from user reqs it sounds like they want to drop the undefined bit. > A) Inheritance: > ========== > > class A { > public $foo; > } > > class B extends A { > public $foo { get() { ... } set($value) { ... } } > } > > => With the accessors syntax there is an expectation that the accessor > declaration will override the previous plain property. At least that's > what I would expect and that's what the code looks like That's why I'm not liking the "undefined" bit. > => With the magic syntax there is the expectation that the $foo > property will not be overridden. Rather the magic functions are > expected to do nothing, because the property already exists. Err, I'm not sure why that would be the expectation. __get is for undefined properties, since, well, it doesn't have any property name attached, so it can't really be for defined properties :) However, __getFoo (with whatever variations the bikeshedding committee will end up with :) has property name attached to it, so requiring property be undefined is not, well, required. Here we need to think which way is better, and I currently tend to think accessor priority is better. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227