Am 24.01.2013 02:12, schrieb Levi Morrison:
I also don't like the `?` for `nullable`. Just stick with PHP
convention and do:
class Foo {
public Bar $bar = NULL;
}
There is no such PHP convention. The PHP convention is *not restrict
type*
(+"loosely typed" addons).
So N
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Clint Priest wrote:
> On 1/23/2013 3:17 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>> Clint: I'm sorry that you spent all that time without hearing feedback
>> from a lot of the "No" voters. Had they been participating all along
>> perhaps it could have been avoided. We'll never kn
>> I also don't like the `?` for `nullable`. Just stick with PHP
>> convention and do:
>>
>> class Foo {
>> public Bar $bar = NULL;
>> }
>
>
> There is no such PHP convention. The PHP convention is *not restrict type*
> (+"loosely typed" addons).
> So NULL is automatically allow
Thank you! Will look at it tomorrow.
Am 24.01.2013 00:45, schrieb Clint Priest:
On 1/23/2013 5:04 PM, Crypto Compress wrote:
guard->in_unset = 1; /* Prevent recursion */
zend_call_method_with_1_params(&object, zobj->ce, &zobj->ce->__unset,
ZEND_UNSET_FUNC_NAME, NULL, member);
guard->in_unset
On 1/23/2013 5:04 PM, Crypto Compress wrote:
guard->in_unset = 1; /* Prevent recursion */
zend_call_method_with_1_params(&object, zobj->ce, &zobj->ce->__unset,
ZEND_UNSET_FUNC_NAME, NULL, member);
guard->in_unset = 0; /* Prevent recursion */
a) That applies to __unset (magic method) only
b) g
Hello!
1) not able to vote
2) looked at patch
3) do not understand the patch
so i have a question regarding guards... e.g.:
guard->in_unset = 1; /* Prevent recursion */
zend_call_method_with_1_params(&object, zobj->ce, &zobj->ce->__unset,
ZEND_UNSET_FUNC_NAME, NULL, member);
guard->in_unset =
On 1/23/2013 4:40 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I appreciate that, I'm hearing through the grapevine that some of the
"no" voters haven't even looked at the patch.
Just to be fair, I suspect quite a few "yes" voters haven't looked at,
nor understood the patch.
-Rasmus
I'd bet good money that's tr
On 01/23/2013 02:35 PM, Clint Priest wrote:
>
> On 1/23/2013 3:17 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>> Clint: I'm sorry that you spent all that time without hearing feedback
>> from a lot of the "No" voters. Had they been participating all along
>> perhaps it could have been avoided. We'll never know.
>
>
On 1/23/2013 3:17 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
Clint: I'm sorry that you spent all that time without hearing feedback
from a lot of the "No" voters. Had they been participating all along
perhaps it could have been avoided. We'll never know.
I appreciate that, I'm hearing through the grapevine that
Well actually you're right. .3 was written by Dennis long ago and I
wrote accessors to be exactly as that document described except where
there was ambiguity.
@Steve Clay: this would be a perfect point to start with
Hello Levi,
Agreed, but if they are automatically generated then I see no harm in
allow custom `isset` and `unset` behavior as long as it doesn't get in
the way or complicate things.
If override of isset/unset is possible, we will end up debugging:
true === isset($this->someUninitializedV
Levi, et al.
> class Foo {
> > private $_bar;
> > public function get bar { return $this->_bar; }
> > public function set bar { $this->_bar = $value; }
> > }
> class Foo {
> private $_bar;
> public get bar() { return $this->_bar; }
> public set bar($value) { $this
Steve:
Like your summary. Disagree with a few points but in general I agree
with you. More below.
> 2. C# has no issetter/unsetter.
>
> IMO customizing these functions is completely unneeded for the vast majority
> of use cases and could be replaced by simpler logic: isset($this->prop)
> calls th
On 1/23/2013 3:07 PM, Crypto Compress wrote:
> I'd just like to point out the fact that RFC v1.1 from a year ago
was exactly as above but people wanted all of these other features.
They were not a property, they had no "guarding", no unset, isset,
etc. The original RFC that was exactly as c# h
> I'd just like to point out the fact that RFC v1.1 from a year ago was
exactly as above but people wanted all of these other features. They
were not a property, they had no "guarding", no unset, isset, etc. The
original RFC that was exactly as c# had it, nobody liked it. It was
changed to its
On Jan 23, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Steve Clay wrote:
> First of all, I think the functionality provided by Clint and Nikita's RFC
> [1] is in demand and would be an asset to PHP, but I also think it can
> repackaged more simply.
>
> People are comparing the RFC to C# [2], but while they look similar
>Personally, I don't see why 'default' can't be used:
>class Foo {
>public $bar { get; set; default 5; } }
>
>This solves the var_dump() problem, and if people want dynamic get
returning something other than the property/field value, so be it.
>C# does indeed have an internal field per propert
Hi Steve,
2. C# has no issetter/unsetter.
IMO customizing these functions is completely unneeded for the vast
majority of use cases and could be replaced by simpler logic:
isset($this->prop) calls the getter and compares to NULL;
unset($this->prop) passes NULL to the setter.
I tend to agree h
18 matches
Mail list logo
