On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Clint Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com> wrote: > On 1/23/2013 3:17 PM, Levi Morrison wrote: >> Clint: I'm sorry that you spent all that time without hearing feedback >> from a lot of the "No" voters. Had they been participating all along >> perhaps it could have been avoided. We'll never know. > > I appreciate that, I'm hearing through the grapevine that some of the "no" > voters haven't even looked at the patch. >
Hi, I voted "no" and I haven't looked at the patch, because my interest in it doesn't extend that far. I simply don't like the idea - it adds nothing to the language which can't already reasonably be done, and for what it does, I find the code harder to follow. I'd personally much rather have $foo->setBar(42); than $foo->bar = 42; doing something magic, even if the accessor would save a few lines of code. Even if I agreed with the idea, I think the "show stopper" of the "parent::$foo" issue is still present. Forcing people to use reflection to get a parent property is an absurd (albeit nifty) workaround. People complain about the lack of consistency in PHP enough already. I also think that in the RFC, it's a bit disingenuous to only mention this limitation in a comment on the 38th line of a code example Regards, Arpad -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
