> -----Original Message-----
> From: ekne...@gmail.com [mailto:ekne...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Etienne Kneuss
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 9:10 AM
> To: Clint Priest
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP-DEV [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 : Interfaces
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Clint Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com> wrote:
> > I would bet, that at present, what you've put down is not allowed because I 
> > purposely leveraged functions in this regard because
> all of the restrictions put in place against functions would apply to 
> accessors (because they are functions).  I would have to test it to
> be certain though.
> >
> > Because of Nikita's desire to not have underlying __getXX() functions 
> > exposed in any way this may have to change.  I had spent
> several hours actually divorcing the created function from the Functions 
> HashTable and later realized I could simply enforce their
> non-existence at call time, this has turned somewhat problematic for static 
> accessors though.
> >
> > Also, your "should be valid" statement implies that you feel properties and 
> > accessors are the same and they are not, internally.
> When a class attempts to implement an interface a "function check" is done 
> and since there is no __getXX() function defined it
> would fail to implementation check against an interface.
> >
> > I cannot stress enough that properties != accessors in any way except the 
> > syntax in which they are used ($o->xyz) or ($o->xyz = 1),
> that is their *only* similarity.
> 
> I not saying accessors are properties. I'm saying that interfaces define 
> usage contracts. And from the point of view of usage contacts:
> 
> interface A {
>    public $a {get; set; }
> }
> 
> is entirely fulfilled by the class:
> 
> class B extends A {
>     public $a;
> }
> 
> You can see a public property as an underlying private property with all 
> usual public accessors defined.
> 
> From the point of view of the user both should be interchangeable 
> transparently.
> 

I *think* we are on the same page here, though I'm not sure what 'user' is 
referring to (user of interface "implementer") or (user of class B).  In any 
case, I don't believe that your class B would be allowed at present, but if it 
is, then it should not be allowed because defining a property to satisfy the 
requirements of an accessor is not right.

Reply via email to