On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Clint Priest wrote:
> The problem was that the RFC had been updated past where the code was, AFAIK
> you can't branch a wiki page, can you? That's what needed branching...
> unless you mean to create a v1.1 page and a v1.2 page, which is basically
> what I've d
gt; From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:16 AM
> To: Clint Priest
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Accessors v1.1 -> v1.2 Summary
>
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Clint Priest wrote:
> > Hey every
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Clint Priest wrote:
> Hey everyone, seems like the conversations have died down and I've attempted
> to go back through all of the emails and produce a 1.1 -> 1.2 document which
> summarizes what I believe are decided, being debated, issues, todos, etc.
>
> Pierr
read-only / write-only keywords
"no equivalent replacement has been suggested" => ouch
read-only => const
write-only => shouldn't exists. A write-only accessor is just a method
disguised in property.
It's not a good idea to allow:
$obj->prop = 3;
when the meaning is:
$obj->meth(3);
20
Hey everyone, seems like the conversations have died down and I've attempted to
go back through all of the emails and produce a 1.1 -> 1.2 document which
summarizes what I believe are decided, being debated, issues, todos, etc.
Pierre had pointed out that I had partially changed the "as-implemen
