That has not been covered and it is a problem, just tested it.
Anyone have any preferences on a resolution?
Only thing that really needs to occur is that the function names need to
be unique, we could prefix any capitals in a variable name with an
additional _ such that:
class A {
public $Foo { get; set; }
public $foo { get; set; }
}
Would mean there would be these function names:
A::__get_Foo();
A::__set_Foo();
A::__getfoo();
A::__setfoo();
Along w/ their unset/isset'rs.
This is what happens as of right now:
Fatal error: Cannot redeclare a::__getfoo() in
/opt/php-core/git/trunk-accessor/cpriest/php/quick2.php on line 9
Good catch on that one.
On 1/2/2013 11:52 PM, Steve Clay wrote:
On Jan 2, 2013, at 10:24 PM, Clint Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com> wrote:
I've updated the Shadowing section of the RFC which I hope clears this up, it
also includes a slightly modified version of your example at the bottom with
comments.
Updated RFC really helps. The notion of $this->prop access semantics depending
on which accessor you're in seems important for the RFC as I think it will seem
foreign to a lot of devs.
When I make traditional PHP "accessor" methods, I have complete control; if I
want getFoo() to set private $foo without calling setFoo(), I can. Not so with real
accessors. Probably a good thing :)
One more concern, sorry if it was covered already: will case-insensitivity of
methods mean you can't define getters for both $foo and $Foo?
Steve
--
-Clint
