At 06:00 AM 8/25/2005, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
> And how can you possibly argue that this more complex than all the other
> OO crap that people are suggesting here....
I belive that we should do our best to filter out this storm of OO
feature requests. People want to make PHP look like some other OO
languages for no good reason other that they're familiar with it or that
their CS teacher thought they were cool.
I completely agree.
This very much bloats the language syntax and would be mainly there
for the sake of OO fanatics. Guys, seriously, this kind of stuff and
a lot of the other OO proposals I've heard here lately are going to
lead to PHP going down the drain. Derick, the fact that you say it's
not worse than "other OO crap that people are suggesting here...."
just means that it's also good to leave the other crap out of PHP.
Sometimes I really wished people who really need this kind of crap go
and download Python & Smalltalk, instead of killing PHP's benefits.
There is no language that does everything, and I'd like to keep PHP
good at what it does best. People who aren't content with PHP not
being a master piece in object oriented really should look elsewhere.
I'll be happy to hear back from them regarding development time,
ease-of-use and training period for developers.
I don't see why the __get/__set/__isset/__unset methods themselves
can't check if the property exists and throw an exception if it
doesn't. I always do that in all my examples... As far as
documentation is concerned, you'll usually have a nice array in the
beginning of the class declaration which is pretty verbose, if that's
not good enough people can use phpDoc (or we can enhance phpDoc). If
you strongly feel that something like _have_prop() is needed despite
exceptions doing the job, it's something that could be considered but
I'm not convinced it's needed.
Andi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
