Re: C# properties vs. accessors RFC
| From: | Crypto Compress | Date: | Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:51:59 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: C# properties vs. accessors RFC | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-65130@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hello Levi,
Agreed, but if they are automatically generated then I see no harm in allow customIf override of isset/unset is possible, we will end up debugging:issetandunsetbehavior as long as it doesn't get in the way or complicate things.
true === isset($this->someUninitializedValue)or
unset($this->memoryConsuming); // with no effectWhat is the benefit of this?
I also don't like theThere is no such PHP convention. The PHP convention is *not restrict type* (+"loosely typed" addons). So NULL is automatically allowed. cryptocompress?fornullable. Just stick with PHP convention and do:class Foo { public Bar $bar = NULL; }