]
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 6:47 PM
> To: Clint M Priest
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Accessors v2 Patch
>
> oh right, I missed them. Yes, so it is covered as well :)
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Clint M Priest wrote:
> > Th
ecially if it can be called just like one) I
> would go for approach 1) and probably mark with a flag. For everything
> else we'd probably have to clean-u reflection to leak less details to
> make sense.
>
> johannes
>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: Pierre Joye
ay, December 11, 2011 6:47 PM
> To: Clint M Priest
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Accessors v2 Patch
>
> oh right, I missed them. Yes, so it is covered as well :)
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Clint M Priest wrote:
> > There are already two te
[mailto:guilhermebla...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:35 PM
To: Will Fitch
Cc: Clint M Priest; Pierre Joye; internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Accessors v2 Patch
hi Will,
That's what I've been thinking about.
I have a special necessity to overload a class
sor class?
>>> 2.2) Provide getGetters(), getSetters()
>>> 3) Modify ReflectionProperty to include hasGetter() and hasSetter()
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
>>
rovide getGetters(), getSetters()
>> 3) Modify ReflectionProperty to include hasGetter() and hasSetter()
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre....@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 6:47 PM
>>
ge-
> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 6:47 PM
> To: Clint M Priest
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Accessors v2 Patch
>
> oh right, I missed them. Yes, so it is covered as well :)
>
> On Mon, Dec
To: Clint M Priest
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Accessors v2 Patch
oh right, I missed them. Yes, so it is covered as well :)
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Clint M Priest wrote:
> There are already two tests against private read and private write, should I
> add t
oh right, I missed them. Yes, so it is covered as well :)
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Clint M Priest wrote:
> There are already two tests against private read and private write, should I
> add two for protected as well?
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www
loration there.
>
> -Clint
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Will Fitch [mailto:will.fi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:41 PM
> To: Clint M Priest
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Accessors v2 Patch
>
> Much better impl
>
> -Clint
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Will Fitch [mailto:will.fi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:41 PM
> To: Clint M Priest
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Accessors v2 Patch
>
> Much better implementation.
>
> As for th
Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:41 PM
To: Clint M Priest
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Accessors v2 Patch
Much better implementation.
As for the failed tests, I would double check and make sure you don't have any
stray debug statements (e.g. printf).
Sent from my iPhone
O
Much better implementation.
As for the failed tests, I would double check and make sure you don't
have any stray debug statements (e.g. printf).
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Clint M Priest wrote:
> https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug_id=49526&patch=accessor_v2.diff&r
13 matches
Mail list logo
