On 2012-07-16, Andrew Faulds <ajf...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> An ugly, confusion-causing syntax.
I'm sorry, but how does this add _anything_ to the discussion?
Qualify your statement, please. What do you find "ugly" about the
syntax, and why? Where do you see confusion arising from the syntax -
what problems do you foresee arising?
Making judgmental statements without any context like the one you made
above does nobody any good, and if you can't find the time to qualify
them properly, it'd be better for everybody if you simply didn't post.
</end rant>
> On 16 July 2012 14:11, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Amaury Bouchard <ama...@amaury.net> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here is an RFC proposal about a syntax extension for PHP. The purpose is to
>>> manage precisely the visbiliy of attributes, by separating reading and
>>> writing access.
>>>
>>> First of all, I know there is already an RFC about attributes ("Property
>>> get/set syntax" [1]). Its goal is mainly different, but I'll discuss it
>>> lower.
>>
>> I'm not sure I really understand what this adds over the existing
>> getter/setter proposal. read-only and write-only should cover the most
>> common cases. If you do need visibility control, it is possible too:
>>
>> public $property {
>> get { ... }
>> protected set { ... }
>> }
>>
>> So what does this proposal add to it?
>>
>> Nikita
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>
>
>
--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead | matt...@zend.com
Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/
PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
