On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Clint Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com> wrote:
> > Actually you could say that last sentence is precisely opposite of the > truth in that a var_dump() will *never* expose properties that are > available via a magic __get() therefore a var_dump() already mis-leads the > developer because there can be properties that can be retrieved which are > not shown by a simple var_dump(). They're not shown because they don't exist. Thus no confusion about whether this is a property or not. If it's a property we can see it in var_dump($obj). If it's magic you can only see it in var_dump($obj->property). With accessors you see both, but you are seeing (potentially) two different values. For me, that's the "misleading" part. I agree that there are benefits here, but I can't agree that the benefits outweigh the draw backs for me, which are all the added complexity. Like Anthony said it's pretty much just coming down to custom scoping getters/setters at the end of the day. > > The result of the current RFC is a result of the endless discussion that > was had on this topic. It's really not appropriate to vote against > something if you did not make your voice heard when discussions of some > aspect were happening. I made my voice heard on the aspect that I was concerned with. My decision was based on reading the entire RFC, downloading the patch, compiling the code, testing it myself, and weighing the pros and cons of the proposal. I believe I was pretty fair, but I am just one person of many that voted.
