I'm saying that when you define an accessor, the body of the get/set
functionality is contained within get {} and set {}, just like C#. I'm
referencing your suggestion to automatic backing fields. There's no need for
the backup.
Reflection for accessors should be treated the same as the rest.
I have no opinion about how it gets implemented under the hood - I thought
we were just discussing the syntax. I most likely don't know enough about
the innards of PHP it carry on that discussion.
But by userspace definitions, are you referring to the fact that getters
and setters would compile do
The difference being *where* the functionality gets mapped. It's not about
making something "look like something else", it's about requiring more
userspace definitions. Functionality within get {} and set {} can (and should
IMO) be implemented outside of userspace code. Whether that means ano
> if we're attempting to get around __set/get, let's not replace them with
more method implementations
I don't understand this argument. Accessors are methods - making them look
like something else won't change that fact.
In C#, type-hinted properties with automatic getters/setters actually
compi
On Dec 6, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Christian Kaps
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I also find this syntax confusing and I think it has a huge WTF factor.
>>
>> Some thoughts about the syntax:
>> - At the first glance, it isn't clear which visibility th
rivate level or something. I did not explore that possibility as of
>> yet.
>>
>> I did add a couple of convenience functions that may already be available in
>> some other form I was not aware of, such as strcatalloc or MAKE_ZNODE().
>>
>> --Clint
>>
>>
d not explore that possibility as of
>> yet.
>>
>> I did add a couple of convenience functions that may already be available in
>> some other form I was not aware of, such as strcatalloc or MAKE_ZNODE().
>>
>> --Clint
>>
>> -Original Message-
>
e of, such as strcatalloc or MAKE_ZNODE().
>
> --Clint
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 4:50 AM
> To: Clint M Priest
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Patch: getters/setters synta
hi,
Please attach the patch (and any future version) to the RFC and to
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=49526, so it won't be lost if your
sever goes down.
Thanks!
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
_ZNODE().
--Clint
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 4:50 AM
To: Clint M Priest
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Patch: getters/setters syntax Implementation
hi Clint!
Thanks for your work so far!
On Sun, D
ists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Patch: getters/setters syntax Implementation
hi Clint!
Thanks for your work so far!
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Clint M Priest wrote:
> What are the next steps to get this added to some future release?
Let discuss the implementation and how it works, th
hi Clint!
Thanks for your work so far!
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Clint M Priest wrote:
> What are the next steps to get this added to some future release?
Let discuss the implementation and how it works, then you can move to
the voting phase. There is no need to hurry as the next relea
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 01:33, Clint M Priest wrote:
> Per RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax
>
>
>
> Alright, getters/setters has been built. This is my first patch to the php
> core. Here is what has been implemented:
>
> http://www.clintpriest.com/patches/accessors_v1.patch (p
13 matches
Mail list logo
