2012/10/12 Clint Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com>
> I guess I didn’t see any other support for it from others
>
Well, I get some bad replies (mainly from Andrew), but good ones too. Some
people (like Matthew) said it was an elegant syntax...
> and it is a subset of what the RFC I am proposing would encompass
>
Yes it's true, my proposal was focusing on a subset of your RFC. But this
subset is - from my experience - the main usage of accessors.
More, both can work together: My syntax could be used to define the
visibility of reading and writing access, while yours is perfect to add
processing on these accesses.
> did I miss something with your original email?
>
I don't know. It's a matter of choice. I prefer to write:
public:protected $a;
protected:const $b;
Rather than:
public $a {
protected set;
}
protected read-only $b;
I saw you removed your new keywords. I think it's a good thing, because
"const" was already here (no need for "read-only").
As I said, both syntaxes can work together. For example:
public:protected $a {
get() { return ($this->_prefix . $this->_a); }
set($val) { $this->_a = substr($val, 1); }
}
The visibility is defined first (how I can use this property?), and then
the code is available if needed (how does it work?). It's the same logic
than when you write "private static function foo() { ... }".
Maybe I'm the only one thinking we can imagine an elegant and
understandable syntax that doesn't need to mimic what C# does. But still.
:-)
