Excuse my late-night-influenced terminology, the word "empty" is much more
suitable than "does not have".
And this "solution" really is more of a hack or work-around than a solution.
I do think that there is a better way to go about implementing
read/write-only, but nothing has come to mind as of yet - at least nothing
that doesn't completely change major aspects of this RFC.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com>wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I apologize for my confusing terminology - let me elaborate. There are
> > no special syntaxes. The below code should help clear things up a bit:
> >
> > class MyClass {
> > private $otherProperty;
> > public $property {
> > get() {}; // Does not "have a body", as there is no code between
> > the curly braces.
>
> It does have a body. This body is just default empty method body
> returning null - which does not throw any exceptions and is completely
> indistinguishable from the outside from property being equal to null.
> I'm not sure it's what the intent of *-only variable is, though I guess
> it is a way to hack around it. I wonder however if it can be done better.
>
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
> (408)454-6900 ext. 227
>
