> On 24 Oct 2014, at 12:59, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote:
>
>>
>> 2. If the aim of this RFC is to replace the getFoo() pattern with the use of
>> "readonly public $foo" properties, a primary difference will be that a
>> getFoo() method can be declared in an interface, whereas a "readonly public
>> $foo" property cannot be. Thus code making use of interfaces will not be
>> able to employ this feature. And I don't think that allowing properties in
>> interfaces is reasonable at this point, because the implementations will be
>> limited to simple-storage properties - only with more comprehensive property
>> accessor support would implementations be allowed to use more complex
>> backing code.
>
> Right, interfaces currently can’t declare properties and I’m not going to
> change that in this RFC. If I revisit getters and setters, that would be
> changed. Still, I think there is usefulness to this without interfaces… it’s
> just more limited, sadly.
>
> It would work quite well with getters and setters and interfaces, if later
> added. Within interfaces, readonly could be used to avoid compelling
> implementing classes to support writing:
>
> interface Point {
> public readonly $x, $y;
> }
>
> But without preventing implementing classes from supporting it.
I added a little Future Scope section on this:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties#puture_scope
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
