Re: [VOTE] Property Accessors for 5.5

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote: > > On 1/20/2013 7:35 AM, Sherif Ramadan wrote: > > Now $surface shows us the following from var_dump.... > > object(surface)#1 (3) { > ["area"]=> > NULL > ["width"]=> > int(4) > ["height"]=> > int(2) > } > > Sounds like a reasonable approach to me... var_dump() > > 1) Should not invoke the getters.. > I can agree this since the side effects could be unpredictable (as in the case of an accessor implementing an actual method rather than dealing with with any values -- the performance loss is unjustified) > 2) Should indicate that they are property accessors (perhaps not even show > the underlying guarded property?) > That is a sensible approach to me. > > Possibly: > > object(surface)#1 (3) { > ["area":accessor]=> > NULL > ["width":accessor]=> > int(4) > ["height":accessor]=> > int(2) > } > > This could easily be changed if nobody had any further disagreements with > this? > > Only issue I could see would be existing code that may parse var_dump() > might break if it wasn't written to accept something other that > private/protected... > I think that one should rely on serialize or json_* serialization methods or parsing data structures as opposed to var_dump output, since var_dump doesn't always provide parseable output. Look at the output of DateTime objects from var_dump or DateInterval objects, which have changed a bit over 5.2 -> 5.3 and other objects like DOMDocument, which at one point did not have any meaningful var_dump output at all. > > > -- > -Clint >