hi!
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I know that we don't like to add new magic methods, but this case
>> seems to require new ones. What's about __getByRef (and its setter
>> equivalent if it is also not supported yet)?
>
> Why would we need that? We already have perfectly good __get, which can
> perfectly return by-ref. The question is only if we allow override __get
> that was declared by-val with __get that is declared by-ref.
I'm not sure to like the idea. I'm not a fan of OO strictness but I'd
to agree with Marcus, I do not expect a reference from an overrided
__get. There is also the problem with internal classes, if I'm not
mistaken.
> As for __set, __set doesn't return anything at all, so it's not very
> relevant anyway.
I meant set by reference. Is it not the same problem?
class foo {function __set($key, &$value) {}} >> fatal error
Cheers,
--
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
