On 24/10/2014 12:54, Andrea Faulds wrote:
On 24 Oct 2014, at 10:29, Jordi Boggiano <j.boggi...@seld.be> wrote:
Thanks for the work (again). It's an interesting small idea but I'd much prefer
revisiting the original getter/setter RFC [1] which had a majority but just
fell short of the 66% mark.
This RFC only implements parts of the getter/setter functionality (readonly
properties) but it does not address the fact that sometimes you want to add
logic to a setter or a getter and if you don't have language level
getters/setters you end up having to change the interface of the object from a
public property to a getFoo/setFoo pair.
This leads to everyone having getFoo/setFoo by default just to avoid interface
changes or mixed interfaces of public properties and setFoo.
On 24 Oct 2014, at 10:34, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
As much i really like the idea to have better properties management in
PHP I see this RFC as an attempt to solve only part of the problem
while dropping most of the other ideas implemented in the past RFCs.
My take on that is that some will vote no, or won't like the idea of
adding anything in this area. Making compromises and implement partial
solutions will only delay the implementation of the complete solution.
Many of us agree that __get/__set is a pain to deal with.The need of
readonly, writeonly or properties with some logic to define or get a
value is a lond due need. Many other languages support that out of the
box since long already. Past RFCs, like the c# one, proposed that. I
would rather focus on trying to find an acceptable syntax and
implementation instead of doing baby steps like that. Baby steps work
very well for scalar type hinting, solving one issue after another,
etc. But for properties we are at the risk of hainvg a serie of
separate RFCs solving the properties management problems in different
ways bringing even more troubles and inconsistencies.
I think I might be misunderstood, here. While getters and setters can
do this, and I’m very much in favour of also reviving a simplified
version of the getter/setter RFC (previous one was way too complex),
I don’t see this as partly implementing them/baby steps/etc. I fact,
I think readonly properties could work together with
getters/setters.
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. It also sounds good to have
very simple getter/setters when needed and simple properties +
eventually readonly otherwise. issetters/unsetters aren't extremely needed.
Cheers
--
Jordi Boggiano
@seldaek - http://nelm.io/jordi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
