What is the state here with regard to merge into php-src? On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Clint M Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com> wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@sugarcrm.com] > > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 10:33 PM > > To: Clint M Priest > > Cc: internals@lists.php.net > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Property get/set syntax > > > > Hi! > > > > > empty() - Returns true for a property retrieved via __get() or via a > > > getter -- Any idea why this would be the case for __get()? Is this a > > > bug? > > > > isset() calls __isset(), empty() calls __isset() and __get(). I'm not > sure what exactly you consider to be a bug. > > I see, well the only way to resolve this would be to add isset and unset > property functions as well. > > Anyone against it? > > > > > > unset() - Would unset a temporary variable (the one returned by the > > > getter) -- see previous email re: adding unset/isset property > > > functions. > > > > unset() calls __unset(). > > > > > sort() - Does the same thing as with __get()/__set() which is to say, > > > the array is sorted but the property is not updated with the value. > > > Should accessor behave differently than the magic methods? Should > > > this just be documents or should this be fixed? > > > > sort() works just fine if you define __get to return by-ref. > > Returning by reference was not documented in the original RFC, would this > syntax work for everyone? > > public $Hours { > &get { return $this->a; } > } > > > > > -- > > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
