Strike that, I was smoking something strong :) Class constants are
not really relevant for this use case.
At 20:57 15/05/2006, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I agree with Andi on that (surprise surprise :)
What does that give you that class constants don't?
Zeev
At 18:34 12/05/2006, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I can see where it could come in handy but I honestly think it'd be bloat.
We have to relax with the OO features because the increased code
size has already made it harder to maintain and it has the
potential to make PHP far more complicated than what it should be.
At 04:35 PM 5/11/2006, Jason Garber wrote:
Hello internals,
__get() and __set() are great, but 90% of the time, I find myself
using them to create public readonly properties.
The only problem with this is it is horridly inefficient, consuming
at least 1 function call and one switch statement (or equiv) per
property read.
Would it be possible to create a new object property attribute:
readonly
class xx
{
readonly $bar;
}
$o = new xx();
$o->bar = 10;
>>> FATAL ERROR
This way, PHP would allow reading (as if it were public), but only
allow writing from within the class.
I think it could really boost performance of complicated application
logic that wishes to enforce good visibility.
Comments?
PS. What brought this up was some serious performance issues in a
piece of code that I am working with - most of which can be tied
back to __get() performance.
--
Best regards,
Jason Garber mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IonZoft, Inc.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
