On 1/13/2013 8:01 AM, Mark wrote:
I'm guessing this RFC won't make it in PHP 5.5? Too bad since it did
seem like a very nice feature to have.
I don't know if it is very helpful but posting nevertheless. I'm a
C++/Qt/QML/PHP developer and for me the proposed syntax in the v1.2
document makes per
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Re the ReflectionProperty::getParentProperty($this, 'foo') suggestion,
>> is this supposed to already get the value of the property (and there
>> would be an additional method ReflectionProperty::setParentProperty)?
>
> I meant getti
Hi!
> Re the ReflectionProperty::getParentProperty($this, 'foo') suggestion,
> is this supposed to already get the value of the property (and there
> would be an additional method ReflectionProperty::setParentProperty)?
I meant getting the ReflectionProperty class, but getting the actual
value is
On 1/10/2013 6:57 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
Even more generic, we just could use existing ReflectionProperty like
this (this is standard API, no changes needed):
(new ReflectionProperty(get_parent_class(),
'foo'))->setValue($this, $val);
Yes, this is even more long-winded, that'
Why we must have parent property access at all? What's the use case and how do
other langs do it?
Am I right to say there is no "parent property", this would just call the
parent's [gs]etter using the same underlying property value?
Steve
--
http://www.mrclay.org/
On Jan 10, 2013, at 6:15 PM,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> > 3) My suggestion is to avoid the engine and syntax related issues of
> > parent property access by putting this as a function in the standard
> > library instead. What I'm thinking about is a function like
> > get_parent_property() which re
Hi!
> 1) I tried to understand how the engine currently compiles and executes
> object property fetches. I found it to be incredibly complex and I
> certainly don't have the abilities to port this for statics. As such the
> "parent::$foo" syntax is dead unless someone else is going to do the
> nec
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Clint Priest wrote:
> Agreed. Some people may actually be using $parent as a variable name, not
> difficult to imagine.
>
> So far parent->foo seems to be the answer.
>
> -Clint
>
My thoughts on the parent situations, as I'm not yet satisfied with the
current sol
Agreed. Some people may actually be using $parent as a variable name,
not difficult to imagine.
So far parent->foo seems to be the answer.
-Clint
On 1/4/2013 4:23 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
One other possible alternative would be to treat parent "like a variable..."
$parent->foo
That w
Hi!
> One other possible alternative would be to treat parent "like a variable..."
>
> $parent->foo
That would be a big BC problem and also require serious changes to
handle it (look how $this is implemented - it's not regular variable at
all). So $parent is probably a non-starter.
--
Stanislav
Hi Clint,
got it.
Am 04.01.2013 um 16:28 schrieb Clint Priest :
> Uhm.. brain fart.
>
> I was thinking $this->$foo was normal when I wrote this up, I would change my
> last statement from the earlier email to any syntax which did not include a $.
>
> That being said then, I think I favor par
Uhm.. brain fart.
I was thinking $this->$foo was normal when I wrote this up, I would
change my last statement from the earlier email to any syntax which did
not include a $.
That being said then, I think I favor parent->foo the best.
One other possible alternative would be to treat parent "
Hi Clint,
Am 04.01.2013 um 04:13 schrieb Clint Priest :
[...]
> 1) It forces the user to access the parent property accessor in a different
> way than is used everywhere else
Isn’t that the same as parent->$foo? Please let’s not introduce a special
syntax for something that can be done proper
Speaking of which, parent::foo ( with :: but no $) might work as well, almost
*any* character change could work...
parent:::$foo
parent:$foo
parent->$foo
parent->foo
parent.$foo
parent.foo
I favor having the $ in some solution though...
-Clint
On Jan 4, 2013, at 5:04 AM, Clint Priest wrote:
Missed that bit... I think that would add two bits of inconsistency though...
(Without the $)
-Clint
On Jan 4, 2013, at 1:18 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> A recent suggestion from Stas is to use parent->$foo (note the use of ->
>> rather than ::)
>
> I actually proposed parent->foo.
Hi!
> A recent suggestion from Stas is to use parent->$foo (note the use of ->
> rather than ::)
I actually proposed parent->foo. parent->$foo implies the name of the
variable is "$foo", not "foo" - just as in $this->$foo. Yes, I know it
does not match parent::$foo - but I can't do much about it
Note, there has been a show stopper of an issue with the current RFC
that many minds have been talking about how to solve.
The problem is with parent::$foo accessing the parent accessor.
In summary, the difficulty is that this is parsed as a static property
access and during compilation there
17 matches
Mail list logo
