Hi
2011/12/6 Rasmus Schultz <ras...@mindplay.dk>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Christian Kaps <christian.k...@mohiva.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I also find this syntax confusing and I think it has a huge WTF factor.
> >
> > Some thoughts about the syntax:
> > - At the first glance, it isn't clear which visibility the getter or
> > setter has
> > - The extra indentation level makes the code more unreadable
> >
> > class Foo {
> >
> > /**
> > *
> > */
> > private $_bar;
> >
> > /**
> > *
> > */
> > public $bar{
> >
> > /**
> > *
> > */
> > set {
> > if ($bar) {
> > $this->_bar = $bar * 12;
> > } else {
> > $this->_bar = 0
> > }
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > *
> > */
> > private set {
> > if ($this->_bar === null) {
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > return $this->_bar;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > *
> > */
> > public function baz() {
> >
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - What about type hints?
> >
> > I prefer a more AS3 like getter and setter syntax.
> > http://help.adobe.com/en_US/**ActionScript/3.0_**ProgrammingAS3/**
> > WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9**b90204-7f30.html#**
> > WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9**b90204-7fcb<
> http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ActionScript/3.0_ProgrammingAS3/WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9b90204-7f30.html#WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9b90204-7fcb
> >
> >
> > Have you read my previous mail http://news.php.net/php.**internals/56762
> <http://news.php.net/php.internals/56762>
> > .
> > I think this syntax fits more to PHP because its similar to the already
> > existing(magic) getter and setter syntax.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Christian
> >
>
> I agree with all of those points - the extra indentation looks messy, and
> yes, type hints are important. It does fit better with PHP in general.
>
> It would be nice to also have support for automatic backing fields in
> addition though - so something simple like this:
>
> class BlogPost
> {
> private $_author;
>
> public get author()
> {
> return $this->_author;
> }
>
> public set author(Person $value)
> {
> $this->_author = $value;
> }
> }
>
> Could be written like this:
>
> class BlogPost
> {
> public Person $author;
> }
>
> Effectively, this shorthand syntax just gives you type-safe properties -
> but it refactors nicely, since you can replace it with a full
> implementation of a backing field at any point.
>
> (on second thought, I don't like the idea I suggested before - adding a
> magical $value in accessors, similar to $this - it's confusing and it's
> going to look like an undeclared local variable...)
>
Because it seems everybody throws in their preferred syntax :X
class X {
public $myProperty {
/* public *inherited* */ set (AnotherClass $value) { // Value from
"outside"
return $value; // Set to property
}
private get (AnotherClass $value) { // Value from property (Maybe with
typehint)
return $value; // returns value to the caller
}
} /* = 'default value'; */;
}
* No _magic_ $value
* Type-Hints
* I think nearly no suprise, what happens here
In my eyes the goal should be to _not_ separate a property from its
accessor anymore, which disqualifies both of Rasmus Schultz suggestions. At
least this is _the_ reason, why I want to see this RFC to be implemented.
