Yes, the two proposals can definitely work together. See my initial message:
class A {
// $str has public reading and private writing,
// and manage french quotes
public:private $str {
get { return "«" . $this->str . "»"; }
set { $this->str = trim($value, "«»"); }
}
}
2012/7/24 André Rømcke <andre.rom...@ez.no>
> On 7/23/12 12:38 PM, "Amaury Bouchard" <ama...@amaury.net> wrote:
>
> 2012/7/23 André Rømcke <andre.rom...@ez.no>
>
>> I think these two proposals can be synced up, what if:
>>
>> public readonly $a;
>>
>> Is shorthand for:
>>
>> public $a { get; protected set; }
>>
>>
>> And when no function is defined, no function overhead is added.
>>
>
> Well, this code:
> public read-only $a;
> introduces a new keyword (that should be avoided when not absolutely
> necessary).
> It's pretty easy to understand what it does (it's an attribute with public
> access, but it's not writable), but you loose meanings (visibility).
>
>
> read-only is already mentioned here:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-as-implemented#read-only_and_write-only_properties
>
> But I see now that it is defined as full read only, not even the class
> itself can write to it, so ignore my code examples.
>
> My point was just; we also have the need for public:protected /
> public:private and would like to avoid the overhead of function calls,
> hence why I looked into if there would be ways to sync the two proposals to
> improve possibility of acceptance (ref feedback in thread).
>
>
>
>
> Hence, writing
> public $a { get; protected set; }
> is more accurate. You recover the lost meaning. But the writing is not
> straightforward.
>
> More, should you write
> public read-only $a;
> or
> public $a { get; private set; }
> ?
>
> Beside, it seems possible to write
> public read-only $a { protected get; private set; }
> but that doesn't means anything.
>
>
> Another examples:
> public read-only $a;
> vs
> public:const $a;
>
> public $a { get; private set; }
> vs
> public:private $a;
>
> public $a { get; protected set; }
> vs
> public:protected $a;
>
> We must be able to choose the attribute's visibility.
> We should be able to read it without having to read some unnecessary code.
> The PHP language should be consistent. I think the visibility
> information shouldn't be distributed on several locations (before the
> attribute; sometimes with a new "read-only" or "write-only" keyword;
> sometimes inside brackets, before a new "get" or "set" keyword).
>
>
